Glendale City Council
June 14, 2022

Impacts After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above will reduce impacts to less than significant. 485 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-173 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) In April 2016, Southern California Area Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.174 As a designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) under federal law, SCAG is responsible for developing and adopting a long-range RTP every four years. The plan evolved out of a massive outreach undertaking involving a broad range of stakeholders across the region to update the shared vision for the region’s sustainable future. The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set forth by the federal Clean Air Act. The RTP/SCS focuses on the interconnected components of economic, social, and transportation investments required to achieve a sustainable regional multimodal transportation system. The goals and policies of the RTP/SCS require the participation of individual municipalities and multilevel investment of stakeholders throughout the region. Based on the regional growth projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS,175 the City had an estimated permanent population of 201,200, 74,500 total dwelling units, and 117,000 employees in 2016 and an estimated population of 203,834 and 81,191 total dwelling units in 2021.176 Moreover, SCAG estimates the City’s population of the City will increase to 214,100 residents, 82,300 dwelling units, and 125,900 employees by 2045, an increase of 12,900 residents, 7,800 dwelling units, and 8,900 employees from 2016 to 2045. This would be an increase of 10,266 residents and 1,109 dwelling units from 2021 to 2045. 174 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, adopted April 2016; http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. 175 SCAG Connect SoCal, Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growthforecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed December 2021. 176 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed December 2021. 486 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-174 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project would locate new development such as homes, businesses, and/or infrastructure, with the effect of substantially inducing growth in the proposed area that would otherwise not have occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude.

The State of California requires that cities plan for changes in population and attend to housing and employment needs; if growth is projected, each city must accommodate a share of the region’s anticipated growth. These projections are provided to the City by SCAG. The City must then demonstrate that it has accommodated, or created the “capacity” for, these projected levels of population, housing, and employment through its Community Plans. Whether a project’s added development would directly induce a substantial population increase or housing growth are evaluated by whether the direct projectrelated growth could be accommodated within the appropriate population and housing projections. As shown in the analysis that follows, direct growth from the proposed Project’s residential component falls within both SCAG’s and the City’s projections. The number of employees and location of employees within the existing Chase Building would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project.

A project’s population impacts are based on an analysis of the probable number of residents associated with the number of residential dwelling units planned in the project. The project’s estimated population is then compared with official population growth forecasts for the City. The proposed Project would include development of a residential apartment building which would house a total of 294 multi-family apartments. Based on an average of 2.6 residents per unit,177 the proposed Project would generate approximately 765178 new residents. The proposed Project would account for approximately 5.9 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2016 to 2045 and approximately 7.5 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2021 to 2045.179,180 Housing impacts are typically based on the number of new dwelling units planned within the proposed Project, as compared to the housing projections. Based on the California Department of Finance data, there are 81,191 occupied dwelling units within the City and according to the SCAG projections that number is to increase to 82,300 dwelling units between 2016 and 2045. This would constitute an increase of approximately 1,109 dwelling units, of which the proposed Project would account for approximately

26.5 percent of the anticipated increase in dwelling units. 177 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed December 2021. 178 294 units * 2.6 (average persons per household) = 765. 179 765 Project residents / 12,900 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 201,200 [2016] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.059.
180 765 Project residents / 10,266 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 203,834 [2021] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.075.
487 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-175 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) EIR. Analysis of the City’s population was used to determine the amount of potential growth within the DSP area. The Department of City Planning approved the Downtown Specific Plan and FEIR in 2007. The most recent comprehensive update to the plan was made in 2019.

Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan. SCAG forecasts population and job growth of the cities and counties in the six county Southern California Region. The Department of City Planning South Glendale Community Plan, which was partially adopted on July 31, 2018, refines the City’s allocation so that projected growth is directed to centers and districts that are located near mass transit, consistent with the Housing Element and other City policies. Directing growth this way protects other areas, such as single-family neighborhoods, historic districts, hillside, and other residential neighborhoods. The impacts of the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan were analyzed in a certified South Glendale Community Plan EIR, however the plan has yet to be adopted.

Construction
The work requirements of most construction projects are highly specialized so that construction workers remain at a job site only for the timeframe in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Construction workers would likely be supplied from the region’s large labor pool. Construction workers would not be likely to relocate their household as a consequence of working on the proposed Project on a short-term basis, and for this reason, significant housing or population impacts will not result from construction of the proposed Project. The City requires construction of affordable housing or payment of an In-Lieu fee. The proposed Project would be required to meet the City’s affordable housing requirements. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, which includes the option to pay an In-Lieu fee for affordable housing. For this reason, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth from affordable housing.

The Project would not induce substantial population during the construction phase and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
According to the DSP EIR, the total City population presented by SCAG in 2020 was projected at 215,207 residents and total housing units were projected at 77,738.181 In 2000, the most recent City estimate determined 91,000 employees were working within the City, including resident and non-resident employees. From 2005-2020, the DSP EIR calculated an increase of 7,164 residents, 3,980 dwelling units, and 3,390 employees following the implementation of the proposed DSP.

The South Glendale Community Plan EIR calculated for the year 2015, a total of 102,338 residents, 37,903 dwelling units, and 46,511 employees. For the Year 2040 in the South Glendale Community Plan area, the South Glendale Community Plan EIR projected the population at 109,323 residents, 40,490 dwelling 181 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38596/636398816908230000. Accessed December 2021.
488 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-176 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 units, and 54,651 employees.182 This would account for an increase of approximately 6,985 residents, 2,587 dwelling units, and 8,140 employees.

Direct Growth
The proposed Project would not generate a substantial number of new residents to the area, but would provide additional housing for the existing need within the City. As noted in the DSP EIR, the DSP would designate new land uses and encourage the redevelopment of existing residential land uses.183 The focus of the Gateway area, which is the district where the Project site is located within the DSP, is the continued promotion and location of commercial and retail uses as well as incorporate mixed-use and residential buildings in the area to increase livability in downtown.

Based on the City’s current household demographics, an average of 2.6 persons per household, the construction of 294 dwelling units with implementation of the Project would result in an increase of approximately 765 residents within the DSP and South Glendale Community Plan area. The proposed Project would represent 10.7 percent of the proposed population increase presented in the DSP EIR projections and approximately 7.4 of the proposed increase in dwelling units for 2020. This would not constitute a substantial increase within the DSP area. Furthermore, the increase in population would be within the realm of the DSP as additional residential and mixed-uses were included in the projected focus area of the plan. The South Glendale Community Plan EIR includes the most recent population projections, for Year 2040, within the vicinity of the Project site. The addition of 765 new residents accounts for approximately 10.9 percent of the future population increase while the addition of 294 dwelling units accounts for approximately 11.3 percent of the future dwelling units increase within the South Glendale Community Plan area. The addition of 765 new residents as a result of the proposed Project would be within the projections of the South Glendale Community Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly induce substantial growth.

Indirect Growth
The proposed Project is an infill development in the DSP and South Glendale Community Plan areas, which is already developed with utility and roadway infrastructure. As stated above, additional population and residential uses were projected DSP EIR as well as the South Glendale Community Plan EIR. As such, both would accommodate the increased population as a result of additional residential uses within the plan areas. The proposed Project would be served by existing infrastructure and would not require or include the development of any new utility or roadway infrastructure. Thus, the proposed Project would not indirectly induce substantial growth, and no impacts related to indirect growth would occur as a result of the proposed Project.
182 South Glendale Community Plan EIR, Population and Housing, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/communityplans/sgcp-eir. Accessed December 2021. 183 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-fordowntown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 489 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-177 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 For the reasons discussed above, the proposed Project would not indirectly or directly induce substantial population growth. Therefore, Project impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project would result in the displacement of existing dwelling units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project site is developed with an existing two-story office building as well as an existing six-story commercial Chase Building, an associated parking structure, and surface parking lots. There are no residential units or residents on the Project site. Moreover, the construction of the 294 dwelling units would result in an increase of approximately 765 net permanent residents in the City. There is no existing affordable housing on the Project site and, therefore, the proposed Project would not displace affordable housing. The City requires construction of affordable housing or payment of an In-Lieu fee. The proposed Project would be required to meet the City’s affordable housing requirements. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, which includes the option to pay an In-Lieu fee for affordable housing.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction or replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur.

Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed Project would result in an increase of approximately 765 permanent residents, 294 dwelling units. According to the DSP EIR, from 2005-2020, the DSP EIR calculated an increase of 7,164 residents, 3,980 dwelling units, and 3,390 employees within the DSP area following the implementation of the proposed DSP. As such, the proposed Project would constitute 10.7 percent of the population increase, and 7.4 percent of the housing unit increase. Based on the South Glendale Community Plan EIR growth projections for the year 2040, population is projected at 109,323 residents, 40,490 dwelling units, and 54,651 employees.184 The proposed Project would account for approximately

5.9 percent of the anticipated increase in residents and approximately 26.5 percent of the anticipated increase in dwelling units from 2016 to 2045 according to SCAG projections.185 The proposed Project would account for approximately 7.5 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2021 to 2045.186 The addition of 765 new residents accounts for approximately 10.9 percent of the future population increase and 11.3 percent of the future dwelling unit increase within the projections of the South Glendale Community Plan EIR.
184 South Glendale Community Plan EIR, Population and Housing, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/communityplans/sgcp-eir. Accessed August 2021. 185 765 Project residents / 12,900 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 201,200 [2016] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.059.
186 765 Project residents / 10,266 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 203,834 [2021] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.075.
490 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-178 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 According to the DSP EIR, total City population and housing including the proposed DSP increases would consist of 222,371 residents and 81,718 housing units. With the addition of related projects as described in Section 2.0, the population and dwelling units generated by the proposed Project and related projects would constitute 1.5187 and 1.6188 percent respectively of the total DSP residents and housing units.

Using the most recent data included in the South Glendale Community Plan EIR, the population and dwelling units that would be generated by the proposed Project and related projects would represent an increase of 3.0 percent and 3.1 percent over the proposed Project’s growth projections, respectively.

Additionally, the DSP included a focus to enhance the residential and mixed-uses within the area which includes the Project site. All potential projects would require review on an individual basis to determine the feasibility of such project within the DSP area. As such, the proposed Project and the related projects would be within the South Glendale Community Plan and DSP EIRs projections and result in a less than significant increase in population, dwelling units. As the proposed Project would not generate employment, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to an increase in employment.

Therefore, the proposed Project and the related projects would not exceed the growth projections of SCAG and the DSP and South Glendale Community Plan EIRs. Because population growth which would be generated by the proposed Project and the related projects have already been anticipated in the South Glendale Community Plan EIR projections, the proposed Project’s population growth would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No population and housing mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No population and housing mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No population and housing mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
187 Total related projects population using 2.6 average household * total dwelling units plus 765 Project residents (See section 2.0 for related projects)
188 Total related projects dwelling units plus 294 Project units 491 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-179 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. A project would normally have a significant impact on fire protection if it requires a new or expanded fire station to maintain service and that new or expanded facility resulted in adverse physical effects. The City provides nine (9) Fire Stations throughout the City as well as a fire communications headquarters, Emergency Medical Services Center, and Fire Prevention/Environmental Management Center.189 Glendale Fire Station No. 26 is nearest to the Project site located at 1145 North Brand Boulevard approximately 0.50 miles north and Station No. 21 is located at 421 Oak Street approximately 0.89 miles south of the Project site. Station No. 26 is equipped with a fire engine, fire truck, and a basic life support ambulance. The GFD responds to more than 90 percent of the emergency 189 City of Glendale, Fire Stations, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/firedepartment/administration/fire-stations. Accessed August 2021. 492 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-180 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 calls within 6 minutes of receiving the call at dispatch.190 The City has reported that with an increase in population, the fire departments have been attending to more medical emergency calls compared to fire calls. However, the City has gained the highest rating possible from the Insurance Services Offices for the number of fire stations strategically placed within City which provide and exceptional level of response.191 The number of sworn and non-sworn fire personnel staffed in the City includes 274 members and at least 50 sworn members are on duty 24 hours per day.192 With an estimated current population of 203,834193 residents, the proposed Project would add an additional 765 residents and would decrease the fire personnel-to-resident ratio from 1.34194 fire personnel to 1,000 residents to 1.33.195 However, this change would not require the construction of additional fire facilities. Furthermore, compliance with the applicable Fire Code and the Building Code provisions determines a project’s impact on fire services.

The proposed Project will be required to meet all code provisions. The proposed Project would be well served with the existing fire stations and impacts would be less than significant. ii. Police Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. The GPD provides police protection services to the Project site from its station at 131 North Isabel Street, approximately 0.65 miles southeast of the Project site. The number of employees and location of employees within the existing Chase Building would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. The GPD currently has 245 sworn officers as of this year.196 Based on the City’s most recent population total of 201,200 residents, the overall ratio is currently 1.22. The proposed Project would generate approximately 765 (based on 2.6 residents per household) additional residents, which would result in an overall service ratio of 1.22 officers per 1,000 residents. The increase in residents within the City would not substantially impact the current police services and would not result in the need for any new facilities or the physical alteration to any existing governmental facility. The GPD also participates in the Los Angeles County Mutual Aid Response Plan which can provide assistance, if necessary, obtained from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office.197 Additionally, reported crime in the 190 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 191 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 192 City of Glendale, Fire Department, Administration,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/administration. Accessed August 2021.
193 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed August 2021. 194 Based on the GFD’s 274 members/203.8 existing residents = 1.34. 195 Based on the GFD’s 274 members/204.6 future residents with proposed Project incorporated = 1.33. 196 Verbal communication between Vilia Zemaitaitis, Principal Planner, and Carl Povilaitis, Chief of Police, December 1, 2021.
197 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, Other Hazards, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed December 2021. 493 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-181 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 City is historically low for cities with populations exceeding 100,000. The increase in population would not substantially affect provision of police protection given the proximity of the Project site to existing police protection services. Based on the service ratio of 1.22 not changing as a result of the proposed Project’s additional 765 new residents, the proposed Project would not result in a need for new or expanded police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. The overall need for police protection services would not increase substantially as a result of proposed Project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. iii. Schools
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed Project would include substantial employment or population growth, which could generate a demand for school facilities that would exceed the capacity of the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). The GUSD consists of 32 total schooling facilities. The proposed Project area is currently served by the following GUSD public schools:

R.D. White Elementary School located approximately 0.44 miles northeast, Columbus Elementary School located 0.49 miles west, Verdugo Academy located approximately 0.53 miles to the south, Woodrow Wilson Middle School approximately 0.86 miles east, Alan F. Daily High School located approximately 0.44 miles south, and Glendale High School located approximately 1.35 miles southeast.198 Other schools near the Project site include the Incarnation Parish School located approximately 0.27 miles north of the Project site Zion Lutheran School located 0.40 miles southeast, and Holy Family Catholic Grade School located 0.95 miles south. Assuming a student generation rate of 0.437,199 the proposed Project would increase enrollment by 335 students. With a total enrollment of 25,528 for the 2019-2020 school year,200 the proposed Project’s 335 new students would increase enrollment at GUSD by 1.3 percent. According to recent enrollment, the overall number of students enrolled has been decreasing.201 As such, this minimal increase in population generated by the proposed Project would be accommodated by existing school facilities. The applicant will also be required to pay school impact fees to the GUSD based on the current fee schedule for residential developments prior to the issuance of buildings permits to provide funds to ensure adequate school facilities are available. Payment of the school impact fees would mitigate any indirect impacts to a less than significant level. 198 Glendale Unified School District, School Finder, https://www.gusd.net/streetfinder. Accessed November 2021.
199 Los Angeles Unified School District, 2020 Developer Fee Justification Study, March 2020, https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/921/LAUSD%20Dev%20Fee%20Study%20202 0_Final.pdf. Accessed December 2021.
200 Education Data Partnership, Glendale Unified District Summary, http://www.ed-data.org/district/LosAngeles/Glendale-Unified. Accessed December 2021. 201 California Department of Education, Data Quest,
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrgrdlevels.aspx?cds=1964568&agglevel=District&year=2020- 21&ro=y. Accessed December 2021.
494 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-182 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 iv. Parks
Less Than Significant Impact. The determination of whether a project results in a significant impact on recreation and parks shall be made considering the following factors: (a) the net population increase resulting from the project; (b) the demand for recreation and park services anticipated at the time of completion and occupancy of a project compared to the expected level of service available, considering, as applicable, scheduled improvements to recreation and park services (renovation, expansion, or addition) and the project’s proportional contribution to the demand; and (c) whether the project includes features that would reduce the demand for park services (e.g., on-site recreation facilities, land dedication, or direct financial support to the Department of Recreation and Parks).

The number of employees and location of employees within the existing Chase Building would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would add approximately 765 new residents to the City. In accordance with the requirements of the GMC, the proposed Project applicant will be required to pay the City’s full fair share Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee to provide funding for park and recreation facilities.202 Payment of the full-fair share fee is considered full mitigation of proposed Project impacts on recreational facilities. The proposed Project would not involve the development or displacement of a park space. The proposed Project would provide open space amenities on-site within the proposed residential building with a total of 15,844 square feet of which a total of 6,994 square feet would be made available to the public. The payment of the impact fee would result in a less than significant impact to park facilities.
v. Other Public Facilities
Libraries
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate a demand for other public facilities (such as libraries) that would exceed the capacity available to serve the Project site. The City has five library branches; the nearest library to the Project site, Brand Library, is located at 1151 North Brand Boulevard, approximately 0.53 miles north of the proposed Project.203 In accordance with the requirements of the GMC, the proposed Project applicant will be required to pay the City’s Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee.204 Payment of the full fair share impact fee is considered full mitigation of the proposed Project’s impact on library facilities and such payment would result in a less than significant impact to library facilities.
202 City Code, Ch. 4.10, Sec. 4.10.040.
203 City of Glendale, Library, Arts & Culture Locations, https://www.eglendalelac.org/in-person-services.

Accessed August 2021.
204 City Code, Ch. 4.10, Sec. 4.10.040.
495 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-183 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Cumulative Impacts
i. Fire Protection:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project, in combination with the related projects, could increase the demand for fire protection services in the proposed Project area. Specifically, there could be increased demands for additional GFD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., property taxes, government funding, and developer fees) to which the proposed Project and related projects would contribute. Similar to the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to GFD review and would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety requirements of the GFD to adequately mitigate fire protection impacts.

To the extent cumulative development causes the need for additional fire stations to be built throughout the City, the development of such stations would be on small on infill lots within existing developed areas and would not likely cause a significant impact upon the environment. Nevertheless, the citing and development on any new fire stations would be subject to further CEQA review and evaluated on a case‐ by‐case basis. However, as the GFD does not currently have any plans for the development of new fire stations in proximity to the Project site, no impacts are currently anticipated to occur. On this basis, the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to fire protection services impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Police Protection:

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project, in combination with the related projects, would increase the demand for police protection services in the proposed Project area. Specifically, there would be an increased demand for additional GPD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. This need would be funded via existing mechanisms (e.g., sales taxes, government funding, and developer fees), to which the proposed Project and related projects would contribute. In addition, each of the related projects would be individually subject to GPD review and would be required to comply with all applicable safety requirements of the GPD and the City to adequately address police protection service demands.

Furthermore, each of the related projects would likely install and/or incorporate adequate crime prevention design features in consultation with the GPD, as necessary, to further decrease the demand for police protection services. To the extent cumulative development causes the need for additional police stations to be built throughout the City, the development of such stations would be on small infill lots within existing developed areas and would not likely cause a significant impact upon the environment. Nevertheless, the citing and development on any new police stations would be subject to further CEQA review and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, as the GPD does not currently have any plans for new police stations to be developed in proximity to the Project site, no impacts are currently anticipated to occur. On this basis, the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to police protection services impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. iii. Schools:

Less Than Significant Impact. The related projects and proposed Project combined could cumulatively generate students. This would create an increased cumulative demand on the local school district. 496 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-184 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Nonetheless, each project would be required to pay school developer fees, pursuant to California Education Code, Section 17620(a)(1), which in accordance with California Government Code Section 65995 are deemed to be full and complete mitigation of any impacts. As such, the proposed Project would not make a considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact. iv. Parks:

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on recreational resources. The proposed Project in combination with the related projects would be expected to increase the cumulative demand for parks and recreational facilities in the City. Similar to the proposed Project’s requirement to pay applicable taxes or fees in accordance with GMC Ordinance No. 5820 and Resolution No. 14-10 to provide funding for park and recreational facilities. Additionally, each related project would be subject to the provisions of the GMC for providing on-site open space, which is proportionately based on the amount of new development. Impacts would be less than significant.
v. Other Public Facilities:

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on other public facilities. The proposed Project in combination with the related projects would be required to pay the City’s Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee. Payment of the impact fee would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No public services mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No public services mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No public services mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
497 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-185 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth, which would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The determination of whether the proposed Project results in a significant impact on recreation and parks shall be made considering the following factors: (a) the net population increase resulting from the proposed Project; (b) the demand for recreation and park services anticipated at the time of Project build-out compared to the expected level of service available, considering, as applicable, scheduled improvements to recreation and park services (renovation, expansion, or addition) and the proposed Project’s proportional contribution to the demand; and (c) whether the proposed Project includes features that would reduce the demand for park services (e.g., on-site recreation facilities, land dedication, or direct financial support to the Department of Community Services and Parks Department).

The proposed Project includes on-site open space amenities intended to serve the recreational needs of the future residents. The Project site is approximately 63,760 square feet in total area and according to DSP Chapter 5.3.1 Open Space, the proposed Project would be required to dedicate 20 percent or 12,752 square feet of the site area to open space. The proposed open space for the proposed Project would include approximately 15,844 square feet, which would be more than the 20 percent required. The proposed Project would also provide 41,625 square feet of residential development open space throughout the residential building, which would exceed the 41,160 square feet required. The Project includes a publicly accessible open space courtyard consisting of approximately 6,994 square feet, which exceeds the DSP 5.3.2 Publicly Accessible Open Space standard of minimum 50% of the open space requirement. The proposed Project would also include a total of 7,064 square feet of residential common 498 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-186 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 open space landscaped area and 1,595 square feet of publicly accessible open space landscaped area.

This would total 137 square feet above the required 20 percent residential common landscaping and 1 square foot above the required 25 percent public open space landscaping as per the DSP 5.5.D and DSP

5.4.1.D. According to the City’s General Plan Recreation Element, the Project site is located within recreational planning area nine which includes the densest area of the City at a ratio of 0.38 acres of park land per 1,000 residents.205 The closest recreational facilities to the Project site include Fremont Park located approximately 0.75 miles west of the Project site and Glendale Central Park located approximately 0.83 miles south of the Project site. Fremont Park (7.9 acres) and Glendale Central Park (3.16 acres) are both designated as neighborhood parks based on the City’s General Plan Recreation Element. Based upon research conducted by Planning Division staff and standards developed by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), a ratio of 1 acre of neighborhood park land for every 1000 residents has been established as a goal for the city to strive towards with neighborhood parks serving a half-mile radius.

The DSP functions as a manual for residents, business owners, property owners, developers, designers, City staff and appointed and elected officials involved in review of proposed development projects. This plan provides an overview for a comprehensive open space network to be developed in the coming years within the DSP. The DSP identifies potential open space in the form of a cap park directly northwest of the Project site known as Space 134.206 Another proposed City project includes in the Verdugo Wash which envisions transforming the stretch of manmade river into an open space including trails and ecological habitat.207 However, there are currently no adopted plans or documents for obtaining and transforming this identified open space. Additionally, the Central Park Masterplan Project was approved in early 2019 which would augment the landscape open space and recreation facilities to replace surface parking lots in the existing Glendale Central Park located at 201 East Colorado Street in the center of the City, approximately 0.86 miles south of the Project site.208 In addition to these plans, the City’s Greener Glendale Plan adopted in 2012, provides objectives to ensure access to parks and recreational open space to residents in the City.209
205 City of Glendale General Plan, Recreation Element,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/recreation-element. Accessed August 2021. 206 Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, Ch.5 Open Space, pg. 5-5. 207 City of Glendale Community Development Department, Verdugo Wash, https://www.verdugowash.com/.

Accessed December 2021.
208 City of Glendale, Central Park Masterplan Project,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-services-parks/capital-improvementprogram/central-park-masterplan. Accessed August 2021. 209 City of Glendale Sustainability Plan, Greener Glendale Plan, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management-services/office-ofsustainability/greener-glendale. Accessed August 2021. 499 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-187 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The proposed Project would generate an estimated 765 residents based on the City’s average persons per household210 and would require approximately 0.76 acres to accommodate the goal of 1 acre of neighborhood park land for every 1000 residents. The proposed open space for the proposed Project would include 15,844 square feet or 0.36 acres of on-site passive open space, approximately 3,000 square feet in addition to the required 20 percent open space. Additionally, the proposed Project applicant would be required to pay the City’s Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee to provide funding for park and recreation facilities. As such, the payment of the full fair share development impact fees for parks and recreation is considered full mitigation of the Project’s increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that no new impacts on or substantial physical deterioration or accelerated deteriation of recreational facilities would occur.

Applicable fees combined with the recreational amenities for residents included in the proposed Project would reduce the impact of the proposed Project to parks and recreational facilities to less than significant.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities, and such construction would have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

No recreational facilities currently exist on the Project site. During construction of the proposed Project, recreational facilities within the vicinity of the proposed Project area would still be available to the public and construction would not generate a demand for park or recreational facilities. Thus, the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities during construction such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated.

As stated above, the proposed Project site is approximately 63,760 square feet in total area and, thus, would be required to dedicate 20 percent of the site area to open space according to DSP Chapter 5.3.1 Open Space. The open space for the proposed Project would be located on-site on Level 1 as well as included throughout the residential building in the form of private balconies, community space, outdoor terraces, and a pool. The open space for the proposed Project would include approximately 15,844 square feet, which is 20 percent more than required. The proposed Project would also provide 41,625 square feet of residential development open space throughout the residential building, which would exceed the 41,160 square feet required. The proposed Project would include more than the required 20 percent open space with approximately 15,844 square feet and including approximately 6,994 square feet that would be accessible to the public. The proposed Project would also include 7,064 square feet of residential common open space landscaped area and 1,595 square feet of publicly accessible open space 210 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed August 2021. 500 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-188 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 landscaping. This would total 137 square feet above the required 20 percent residential common landscaping and 1 square foot above the required 25 percent public open space landscaping as per the DSP 5.5.D and DSP 5.4.1.D. With the requirements and plans outlined in the DSP, the City’s Greener Glendale Plan, and the Central Park Masterplan, and payment of the full fare share City’s Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee, the proposed Project in addition to these City plans would provide sufficient park space for residents and the public and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project in combination with the related projects would be expected to increase the cumulative demand for parks and recreational facilities in the proposed Project area. Similar to the proposed Project’s requirement to pay fees to improve recreation and park facilities, the related projects that include residential units would be required to pay the City’s Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee to provide funding for park and recreation facilities as well as applicable Quimby fees to mitigate impacts upon park and recreational facilities and to provide additional funds to meet Citywide park Citywide Park goals. For these reasons, no significant cumulative impact to recreation facilities will result from the proposed Project and related projects.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No recreation mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No recreation mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No recreation mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
501 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-189 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.17 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The following analysis utilizes information provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG), June 22, 2021. The Transportation Impact Analysis is available as Appendix E.
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The following plans provided by the City contain goals and policies for the City’s current and future circulation system of the City: The City of Glendale Circulation Plan (within the General Plan Circulation Element), DSP, partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan, and the City of Glendale Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The proposed Project’s potential to conflict with each program, plan, ordinance, and policy is described below within Tables 5.17-1 through Table 5.17-

3. City of Glendale Circulation Plan
The Circulation Plan is contained in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and defines the goals and policies for managing the movement of people and goods through the City. This element was adopted in 1998 and includes the following goals for the City’s long term circulation system:

1. Preservation and enhancement of the quality of life in Glendale’s unique communities

1. Minimization of congestion, air pollution, and noise associated with motor vehicles

2. Reasonable access to services and goods in Glendale by a variety of transportation modes

3. Functional and safe streetscapes that are aesthetically pleasing for both pedestrians and vehicular travel

4. Land Use which can be supported within the capacity constraints of existing and realistic future infrastructure
502 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-190 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Applicable goals and policies are described below in Table 5.17-1: City of Glendale Circulation Plan Consistency Analysis.

TABLE 5.17-1

CITY OF GLENDALE CIRCULATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
City of Glendale Circulation Plan
Goal 1
Support and enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers to continue to serve the needs of nearby residents
No Conflict. The Project site is located
within the Gateway District which includes
mainly high-rise, commercial
development with some residential uses
and is focused on furthering the number of
residential buildings in the area to
enhance the character of the existing area
and provide more opportunities for close
access to downtown via walking, bicycling,
and public transportation. The proposed
Project would add residential uses to the
area and create a more balanced effect.

The existing neighborhood commercial
centers would be serve the additional
residents of the proposed Project.

Maintain acceptable noise levels in residential areas as defined in the Noise Element by managing traffic volumes and speed No Conflict. Vehicular access to the
Project site will be provided via two
driveways along the west side of Maryland
Avenue. The proposed Project would result
in a net increase of 81 AM total peak hour
volumes, 95 PM total peak hour volumes,
and 1,198 total daily trip ends volumes.

Traffic resulting from the operation of the
proposed Project would not exceed
operations criteria of the City at the six
study intersections analyzed in the
Transportation Impact Analysis for the
proposed Project (see Appendix E). As the
proposed Project would utilize a similar
traffic pattern to the existing site, noise
levels should remain similar. Additionally,
the proposed Project would comply with
existing City codes relating to speed limits
in residential areas.

Discourage high speeds on residential streets through roadway design and traffic enforcement
No Conflict. The proposed Project would
adhere to GMC Chapter 10.24 regarding
speed zones and would not allow unsafe
speed limits within the proposed Project
area.

Develop acceptable thresholds of traffic volume in residential zones based on environmental capacity
No Conflict. Traffic volumes expected to
be generated by the proposed Project
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours,
as well as on a daily basis, were estimated
using rates published in the ITE Trip
Generation Manual. ITE Land Use Code 222
(Multifamily Housing [High-Rise]) trip
generation average rates were used to
503 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-191 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.17-1

CITY OF GLENDALE CIRCULATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
forecast the traffic volumes expected to
be generated by the proposed Project. ITE
Land Use Code 710 (General Office
Building) trip generation average rates
were used to forecast the traffic volumes
generated by the 45,125 square feet of
floor area related to the existing Chase
Building, for which parking will be
provided at the Project site. The proposed
Project would result in a net increase of 81
AM total peak hour volumes, 95 PM total
peak hour volumes, and 1,198 total daily
trip ends volumes. Traffic resulting from
the operation of the proposed Project
would not exceed operations criteria of
the City at the six study intersections
analyzed in the Transportation Impact
Analysis for the proposed Project (see
Appendix E).

Goal 2
Increase/support public and high occupancy vehicle transportation system improvements through mitigation of traffic impacts from new development
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 5.11
and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the
Project site is located within one-half mile
of a high-quality transit corridor and
within a TPA. The Project site is also
located within one-half mile of numerous
bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. As
analyzed in this section of the SCEA,
traffic impacts would be less than
significant and no project-specific
mitigation measures would be required.

Develop parking policies which support reduced automobile travel in the most congested areas of Glendale
No Conflict. As the proposed Project is
located within a transit priority area, the
proposed Project proposes 341 spaces with
an additional 30 for guests and total
commercial parking for the existing Chase
Building on-site would be 129 spaces. 47 of
the residential parking spaces would be
tandem parking spaces for the 47 twobedroom units, which is allowed per the GMC. The amount of parking supplied for
the proposed Project would be consistent
with the City’s municipal code standards
for parking.

Construct the complete bikeway system for Glendale as identified in the Bikeway Master Plan and continue to consider additions or adjustments to the planned system
No Conflict. The proposed Project is
located along Brand Boulevard and
Maryland Avenue, which provides access
and connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle
networks in the direct Project vicinity.

While no bicycle infrastructure is provided
on Brand Boulevard or Maryland Avenue,
the proposed Project will not preclude the
City from installing bicycle infrastructure
in the future. The proposed Project would
504 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-192 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.17-1

CITY OF GLENDALE CIRCULATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
provide a total of 115 bicycle parking
spaces (96 long term and 19 short term).

Goal 3
Encourage growth in areas and in patterns which are of can be well served by public transportation
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 5.11
and Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project
site is located within one-half mile of a
high-quality transit corridor and within a
TPA. T proposed Project would include
development of 294 residential units
within an area with numerous bus routes
as shown in Figure 3.0-5 and other public
transportation routes.

Encourage housing around and in commercial centers No Conflict. The proposed Project is located within an area that is mainly
commercial and would promote the efforts
of the DSP by including more residential
uses on the same site as an existing Chase
Building within that area to further a
better balance between commercial and
residential uses.

Ensure transportation connections to regional systems by a variety of modes
No Conflict. There are no transit stops
currently provided along the Project site’s
frontage on Brand Boulevard or Maryland
Avenue, but there are stops provided on
adjacent streets. As discussed in Section

5.11 and Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the
Project site is located within one-half mile
of a high-quality transit corridor and
within a TPA. (refer to Section 3.0 for
additional discussion on proposed Project
Transit Priority Project designation). There
are also numerous bus routes within the
vicinity of the Project site as shown in
Figure 3.0-5.

Meet special transportation needs of the physically challenged No Conflict. The proposed Project will provide approximately nine accessible
parking spaces for those requiring ADA
compliant spaces. Additionally, public bus
and metro transportation provided within
the vicinity of the proposed Project would
be accessible to the physically challenged.

Goal 4
Provide and maintain high quality streetscape and pedestrian amenities (i.e., bus shelters, street trees, street furniture, wide sidewalks, etc.)
No Conflict. The proposed Project’s
driveways are located along Maryland
Avenue, which is designated as a Local
Street north of Doran Street. The driveway
placement along Maryland Avenue will
allow for vehicular access to the Project
site with limited potential for conflicts
with pedestrians and bicyclists. The
proposed Project would also provide
landscaping and public open space along
505 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-193 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.17-1

CITY OF GLENDALE CIRCULATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
pedestrian walkways to maintain high
quality streetscape and amenities.

Goal 5
Balance land use/zoning with roadway capacity by establishing congestion thresholds and avoiding unacceptable levels of congestion from future development
No Conflict. In accordance with Glendale
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Guidelines, a significant VMT impact will
occur if the Project generates a homebased VMT per capita exceeding a level of 15% below the existing Citywide average.

As such, the proposed Project has been
evaluated for this level of VMT (see
response to Checklist Question b, below,
and Appendix E) and would not create
result in a significant impact on
congestion.

Source: City of Glendale, The Circulation Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4497/635242143425530000, Accessed December 2021.

Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan
The partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan is the official guide partially adopted by the City Council on July 31, 2018. It contains community level policies for to development for of the neighborhoods and commercial districts in Glendale south of the 134 Freeway, including the DSP is incorporated into the SGCP. The Plan constitutes the City’s goals and policies for stewardship of the places and people that make up South Glendale. The partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan is intended to shape positive community change and foster sustainable land use patterns, while balancing the unique character of the community with citywide policies and regional initiatives; it. The partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan promotes an arrangement of land use, infrastructure, and services intend-ed to enhance the economic, social, and physical health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the people who live, work, and invest in South Glendale.

In terms of mobility, the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan uses the following Citywide goals as a guide for their developed policies:
• Provide an alternative to automotive transportation by designing healthy, attractive, safe streets for all users.
• Implement the Safe and Healthy Streets Plan, Bicycle Transportation Plan, Safe Routes to School, the Citywide Pedestrian Plan, and other multi-modal policies and programs. • Support best practices in parking management.
• Support flexibility in local street improvements (i.e., sidewalks, lighting, access) to meet neighborhood needs.
506 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-194 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Applicable goals and policies are described below in Table 5.17-2: Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan Consistency Analysis.

TABLE 5.17-2

PARTIALLY ADOPTED SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Plan Objectives Project Consistency
Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan
Principle

3.6.2 South Glendale’s mobility network provides linkages to important destinations within Glendale and within the surrounding region, while enabling safe, efficient movement for travelers of all modes, offering an alternative to automobile commuting, and expanding recreational opportunities with connections to parks and trails. Key aspects include maintaining existing local transit, expanding regional transit along corridors with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and streetcar service, providing improved transit stops and implementing the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Citywide Pedestrian Plan.

Other top priorities include increasing pedestrian safety through Safe Routes to School programs at all schools and identifying Pedestrian Priority Areas that focus pedestrian improvements along commercial and mixed-use oriented transit and bicycle corridors. Safety enhancements to South Glendale’s road network that are consistent with the City of Glendale’s adopted Complete Streets policy and with the adopted Greener Glendale Plan, include signalized crosswalks, landscape park-ways, buffers, and curb extensions. Other Complete Streets projects include creating greenways that provide safe and inviting opportunities for walking and cycling for recreation, health, as well as for transportation and the incorporation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures for South Glendale’s office and government employees.

No Conflict. To the east, adjacent to the
Project site includes commercial uses with
residential uses found on Louise Street.

Additionally, the proposed Project would
add a residential use within a high quality
transit area to promote the use of public
transit. As discussed in Section 5.11 and
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site
is located within one-half mile of a highquality transit corridor and within a TPA.

The Project site is also located within onehalf mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5.The proposed Project will
close the existing driveways along Brand
Boulevard, which will further enhance the
pedestrian experience along the Project
site’s Brand Boulevard frontage. This will
increase access to the areas surrounding
the Project site and support connectivity.

The driveway placement along Maryland
Avenue will allow for vehicular access to
the Project site with limited potential for
conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists.

Additionally, the proposed Project would
provide approximately 96 long-term and
19 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The
proposed Project would provide cohesive
pedestrian walkways and plaza areas
adjacent to the Project site.

Source: City of Glendale, Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP), https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/community-plans/south-glendalecommunity-plan, Accessed December 2021.

Downtown Specific Plan
The DSP is an urban design-oriented plan, which sets the physical standards and guidelines as well as land use regulations for activities within the DSP area, consisting of approximately 220 acres located in the center of the City. The area is generally bounded to the north by Glenoaks Avenue, to the west by Central and Columbus Avenues, to the east along Maryland and Glendale Avenues and to the south by Colorado and Elk Streets. The DSP is designed to function as a manual for residents, business owners, property owners, developers, designers, City staff and appointed and elected officials involved in review of proposed development projects. The City has developed a set of Policies and Standards, which apply to all downtown properties. As such, the Specific Plan Policies and Standards supersede those identified in the Zoning Code. Applicable goals and policies are described below in Table 5.17-3: Downtown 507 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-195 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Specific Plan Consistency Analysis. The DSP considers transportation as a means to accomplish the community’s vision and goals for downtown in the realm of economic development, excellence in urban design, environmental quality, and quality-of-life for all residents. The DSP mobility policies maximize the accessibility, safety, and efficiency of the Downtown transportation system for all users, including pedestrians, transit passengers, cyclists, and drivers of both personal and commercial vehicles.

TABLE 5.17-3

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
Downtown Specific Plan
Mobility Policies
Policy 6.1.1 (a) Maintain acceptable levels of local circulation in the DSP area and adjacent neighborhoods and good connections with the regional circulation network for both transit and personal/commercial vehicles. (b) Develop street typology based on functional and urban design considerations, emphasizing connectivity and linkages, pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort, increasing transit movement and reducing total person delay, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. (c) Maintain, re-establish, and enhance the street grid, to promote flexibility of movement through greater street connectivity, capture natural views, and retain the historic relationships between various streets. (d) Maintain, re-establish, and enhance the multi-modal use of Downtown alleys as an integral part of the Downtown transportation system. (e) Continue the Citywide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) safety improvements to increase the number of students who walk and bike to school. (f) Sustain ongoing SRTS education program to educate and encourage students to walk and bike to school safety.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
encourage improved access and mobility by
adding residential use on a single
development with an existing commercial
office building that would remain on site
and adjacent to commercial uses. As
discussed in Section 5.11 and Section 3.0
of this SCEA, the Project site is located
within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The
Project site is also located within one-half
mile of numerous bus routes as shown in
Figure 3.0-5. The proposed Project would
also provide approximately 96 long-term
and 19 short-term bicycle parking spaces as
well as cohesive pedestrian walkways and
plaza areas adjacent to the Project site.

Sidewalks are provided on all streets within
the immediate Project vicinity, and the
proposed Project will not alter existing
pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally, the
proposed Project will close the existing
driveways along Brand Boulevard, which
will further enhance the pedestrian
experience along the Project site’s Brand
Boulevard frontage. While no bicycle
infrastructure is provided on Brand
Boulevard or Maryland Avenue, the
proposed Project will not preclude the City
from installing bicycle infrastructure in the
future. The proposed Project would not
alter or prohibit the use of the street grid,
the Downtown alleys, the Citywide Safe
Routes to School (SRTS), or the ongoing
SRTS education program.

Policy 6.1.2 (a) Link land use and transit development policies to maximize transit use and convenience in Downtown. (b) Cluster housing and employment around shared parking and major transit corridors and transfer nodes, connected by pedestrian streets. (c) Make street and transit stop improvements to facilitate the safety, attractiveness, and convenience of transit use. This might include transit improvements to designated transit-priority streets to keep buses moving, upgrades to transit stops to include amenities such as No Conflict. The proposed Project’s
location within the DSP would further the
goals to incorporate more residential uses
within the commercial area and enhance
pedestrian activity within city hubs such as
downtown. Additionally, the proposed
Project would provide parking for the
existing Chase Building that would remain
508 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-196 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.17-3

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
weather protection, and real time trip information, and other improvements.
on site, ensuring access for both
commercial and residential uses. As the
proposed Project will close the existing
driveways along the Project site’s Brand
Boulevard frontage, transit stops could be
moved along the Project site’s frontage
without any potential conflicts with
vehicles entering and exiting the proposed
Project. As such, the proposed Project
would ensure future public transportation
opportunities within the area.

Policy 6.1.3 (a) Increase transportation choices by providing viable alternatives to exclusive reliance on the auto for Downtown residents and visitors. (b) Through sound land use and transportation planning, emphasize diversifying modal choices, increasing number of downtown trips by transit, bicycle, and on foot, and improving pedestrian comfort and safety. (c) Consider the development of mobility devices including bicycle, electronic bicycle, and electronic scooters as a mode of transportation.

No Conflict. As previously stated, the
Project site is located within the vicinity of
multiple metro and bus lines which provide
regional and local access to the Project
site. Bicycle parking is also proposed for the
proposed Project consistent with City code
requirements. Additionally, a cohesive
pedestrian walkway and plaza areas
adjacent to the Project site would be
provided. Sidewalks are provided on all
streets within the immediate Project
vicinity, and the proposed Project will not
alter existing pedestrian infrastructure.

Additionally, the proposed Project will close
the existing driveways along Brand
Boulevard, which will further enhance the
pedestrian experience along the Project
site’s Brand Boulevard frontage.

Policy 6.1.4 (a) Provide designated bicycle routes with lane markings and signage within and to and from major downtown destinations. (b) Include bicycle parking, showers, and lockers to promote bicycle commuting in new development. (c) Include bicycle parking in streetscape improvements. (d) Promote increased bicycling for downtown residents and visitors with expanded marketing, promotional/informational events, and financial incentives.

No Conflict. The Project site is located
along Brand Boulevard and Maryland
Avenue, which provide existing access and
connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle
networks in the direct Project vicinity. The
proposed Project would provide
approximately 96 long-term and 19 shortterm bicycle parking spaces. The proposed Project would allow for future City bicycle
infrastructure to be installed. Also, the
addition of bicycle parking and the location
of the Project site would promote increased
bike use throughout the downtown area by
situating residents within a commercially
developed area of the City.

Policy 6.1.5 (a) Provide a high level of pedestrian amenities throughout the downtown area. Minimize interruptions, such as areas for loading and trash collection, and parking garage entries, in sidewalks designated for pedestrian priority. (b) Provide pedestrian crosswalks at all intersections and consider additional improvements to promote safety in key locations with high potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. (c) Consider the special mobility requirements of the young, the elderly, and wheelchair or mobility impaired users of the sidewalk network. (d) Promote increased No Conflict. The proposed Project will
close the existing driveways along Brand
Boulevard, which will further enhance the
pedestrian experience along the Project
site’s Brand Boulevard frontage. This will
increase access to the areas surrounding
the Project site and support connectivity.

The driveway placement along Maryland
Avenue will allow for vehicular access to
the Project site with limited potential for
conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists.
509 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-197 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.17-3

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Plan Objectives Project Consistency
walking for downtown residents and visitors with expanded marketing, promotional/informational events, and financial incentives.

The proposed Project would provide
cohesive pedestrian walkways and plaza
areas adjacent to the Project site.

Policy 6.1.6 (a) Maximize the efficiency of existing and future parking facilities. (b) Create a Transportation Management District to manage parking supply and revenue policies. The District can facilitate coordination of parking pricing to promote efficient use of parking resources, policies which provide incentives for transit use for employees, and other downtown transportation programs and incentives. (c) Use shared parking where possible and establish operations guidelines and standards to minimize parking activity impacts, particularly spillover parking impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. (d) Require a certain portion of on-site parking for motorcycle, bicycle, and carpool/carshare vehicle parking in addition to automobile spaces. (e) Maximize the efficiency of parking by managing prices to correspond with activity and demand patterns. (f) Where an existing parking structure can be shown through parking studies to provide more parking than required for an existing facility, excess parking may be converted to other uses or parking should be made available for shared use. At off-peak times where parking is not in use by a facility, parking should be made available for shared use. (g) Reform preferential parking permit program to protect downtown adjacent neighborhoods from spillover parking problems.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
provide replacement vehicular parking for
the existing Chase Building that would
remain on site as well as the residential
uses proposed. A total of 129 spaces would
be provided for commercial uses in the two
above ground levels and 373 parking spaces
would be provided within four subterranean
levels for the residential use proposed on
the site. Additionally, the proposed Project
would provide approximately 96 long-term
and 19 short-term bicycle parking spaces.

The amount of parking supplied for the
proposed Project would be consistent with
the GMC.

Policy 6.1.7 Through a strategic hierarchy of pedestrian-oriented and transit and vehicular-oriented streets in Downtown, parking management, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) incentives, transportation systems management (TSM), and key infrastructure improvements, work to minimize traffic and parking spillover into downtown-adjacent neighborhoods. These strategies, combined with a 1st/last mile improvements, will promote active transportation modes and reduce vehicle miles traveled in the DSP area.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
provide a total of 129 spaces for
commercial uses that would remain on site
in the two above ground levels and 373
parking spaces for the residential use
proposed on the site within four
subterranean levels. The amount of parking
provided on site would not result in
overflow parking into the downtownadjacent neighborhoods during the operation of the proposed Project. The
proposed Project would comply with GMC

30.32.171 to develop a TDM plan, pay dues
to a designated transportation management
association, and include bicycle facilities
on-site. Additionally, as discussed in
Section 5.11 and Section 3.0 of this SCEA,
the Project site is located within one-half
mile of a high-quality transit corridor and
within a TPA. The Project site is also located
within one-half mile of numerous bus routes
as shown in Figure 3.0-5. As such, the
proposed Project would promote active
transportation modes within the vicinity of
the Project site.

Source: City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/plans-for-downtown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 510 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-198 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 City of Glendale Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines The Glendale TIA Guidelines document provides guidance to City staff, applicants, and consultants on the requirements to evaluate transportation impacts for projects in the City. With the approval of SB 743, VMT is the preferred metric for assessing transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA, however, SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from using metrics such as LOS as part of the application of local general plan policies, municipal and zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements through a city’s planning approval process; cities can still ensure adequate operation of the transportation system in terms of transportation congestion measures related to vehicular delay and roadway capacity. As such, the City can continue to require congestion-related transportation analysis and mitigation projects through planning approval processes outside CEQA.

The recommended VMT estimating tool for the City is the City of Glendale Online VMT Tool which can be utilized to estimate VMT efficiency metrics for land use projects by locating the project’s address or assessor’s parcel. Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, a LOS analysis and other analyses deemed appropriate by the City should be prepared in transportation impact analysis to inform decision makers of the overall transportation effects of a project. As such a Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by LLG for the proposed Project that included a VMT and LOS analysis (see Appendix E).

In accordance with Glendale TIA Guidelines, a significant VMT impact will occur if the Project generates a home-based VMT per capita exceeding a level of 15% below the existing Citywide average. The City’s online VMT mapping tool states that the threshold (i.e., 15% below the existing Citywide average) homebased VMT per capita average for residential projects is 7.39 VMT per capita. Per the City’s online mapping tool, the proposed Project’s home-based VMT per capita is 6.67 VMT per capita, which is below the threshold of 7.39 VMT per capita. Further discussion regarding VMT is provided in response to Checklist Question b, below.

The LOS analysis identified six study intersections and analyzed these intersections to determine changes in operations following construction and occupancy of the proposed Project. The following six (6) intersections were identified:

1. Brand Boulevard / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB Off-Ramp;

2. Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB On-Ramp;

3. Brand Boulevard / Doran Street;

4. Maryland Avenue / Doran Street;

5. Louise Street / Maryland Place; and

6. Louise Street / Doran Street.

LOS calculations were prepared for the following scenarios for the study intersections:
a. Existing (2021) conditions.
b. Condition (a) plus 1.0% annual ambient traffic growth through year 2024 and with completion and occupancy of the related projects (i.e., Opening Year baseline). 511 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-199 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 c. Condition (b) with completion and occupancy of the proposed Project. d. Condition (b) plus 1.0% annual ambient traffic growth through year 2029 and with completion and occupancy of the related projects (i.e., Cumulative baseline). e. Condition (d) with completion and occupancy of the proposed Project.

According to the Glendale TIA Guidelines, the operations criteria is exceeded if the proposed Projectrelated increase in delay is equal to or exceeds the thresholds presented in Table 5.17-4: City Intersections Operations Criteria.

TABLE 5.17-4

CITY INTERSECTIONS OPERATIONS CRITERIA
Final Delay Level of Service Project Related Increase in Delay >35.0 seconds D,E or F Equal to or greater than 5 seconds Source: Transportation Impact Analysis (See Appendix E).

As shown in Table 5.17-5: Summary of Delay Values and Levels of Service (LOS), the proposed Project would not exceed the thresholds in the Glendale TIA Guidelines.

TABLE 5.17-5

SUMMARY OF DELAY VALUES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
No. Intersection Peak
Hour
Year 2021
Existing
Year 2024
Opening Year
Baseline
Year 2024
Opening Year
Plus Project
Chang
e in
Delay
Criteria
Exceeded
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Brand
Boulevard/Goode
Avenue – SR-134 WB
Off Ramp
AM 64.2 E 78.4 E 78.6 E 0.2 No
PM

42.6 D 52.4 D 52.8 D 0.4 No
2 Brand
Boulevard/Sanchez
Drive – SR-134 EB On
Ramp
AM 31.6 C 35.5 D 35.5 D 0.0 No
PM

25.6 C 27.2 C 27.2 C 0.0 No
3 Brand
Boulevard/Doran
Street
AM 30.9 C 33.5 C 33.6 C 0.1 No
PM 30.8 C 34.7 C 35.0 D 0.3 No
4 Maryland
Avenue/Doran
Street
AM 11.9 B 17.8 B 17.6 B -0.2 No
PM 16.6 B 17.5 B 17.7 B 0.2 No
5 Louise
Street/Maryland
Place
AM 13.1 B 13.4 B 14.0 B 0.6 No
PM 31.0 D 35.5 E 37.0 E 1.5 No
6 Louise Street/Doran
Street
AM 13.5 B 13.9 B 13.9 B 0.0 No
PM 17.2 B 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.1 No
Source: Transportation Impact Analysis (See Appendix E Table 10-1).

The “Opening Year Plus Project” conditions were forecast based on the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project plus completion and occupancy of related projects. Application of the City’s 512 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-200 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 threshold criteria to the “Opening Year Plus Project” scenario indicates that the proposed Project would not exceed the operations criteria at any of the six study intersections. Accordingly, no traffic measures are required or recommended for the study intersections. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that “vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and that “projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the existing Glendale Beeline 1 stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue. 211,212 Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.213 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue.

As discussed above, the current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1 along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.214,215 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2. Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation).216,217 211 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 212 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
213 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 214 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
215 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
216 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 217 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
513 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-201 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site are shown in Figure 3.0-5 in Section 3.0.

In September 2013, the Governor’s Office signed Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), starting a process that fundamentally changes the way transportation impact analysis is conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Within the State’s CEQA Guidelines, these changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant traffic impacts. SB 743 identifies VMT as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric, along with the elimination of auto delay/LOS for CEQA purposes statewide. The justification for this paradigm shift is that LOS impacts lead to improvements that increase roadway capacity and therefore induce more traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.

In January 2016, OPR released for public review a revised proposal for changes to the CEQA Guidelines which reinforced VMT as the primary metric for transportation performance and included new threshold recommendations that are better aligned with California’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals.

In November 2017, OPR released proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in support of the goals to develop a transportation performance metric that would help promote: the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal networks, and a diversity of land uses. The proposed updates stated that once the new transportation guidelines are adopted, automobile delay (LOS) generally will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA. The guidelines established VMT as the primary metric for evaluating a project’s environmental impacts on the transportation system. The guidelines also required that the environmental assessment for a project consider whether the project may conflict with plans or policies addressing the circulation system and removed language regarding conflicting with a congestion management program (CMP), including LOS standards for roads or highways. OPR granted agencies a phase-in period of two years. All California cities must update their transportation impact analysis metrics to evaluate transportation impacts with a VMT-based metric prior to July 1, 2020.

Agencies ready for the change may implement immediately.

The City has formally adopted VMT as the criteria for determining transportation impacts of development projects in conjunction with the Glendale TIA Guidelines, which includes VMT guidelines and thresholds for measuring transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, a VMT assessment has been prepared of the proposed Project’s potential VMT impact based on the Glendale TIA Guidelines.

VMT Methodology
VMT is defined as a measurement of miles traveled by vehicles within a specified region and for a specified period of time. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network. VMTs are calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (round-trip) travel and is often estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.
514 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-202 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The City formally adopted VMT as the criteria for determining transportation impacts of development projects in conjunction with the Glendale TIA Guidelines, which includes VMT guidelines and thresholds for measuring transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, a VMT assessment has been prepared of the proposed Project’s potential VMT impact based on the Glendale TIA Guidelines.

According to the Glendale TIA Guidelines, proposed residential projects within areas that generate VMT below adopted City thresholds can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis.218 This determination would be based on residential and employment CMT screening maps which show transportation analysis zones (TAZs) in the City where VMT is below the City’s impact threshold. The following types of projects could be screened out using this approach:
• Residential project proposed in TAZs with home-based VMT per capita below the City’s threshold of exceeding 85 percent of the citywide average.

In order to utilize this screening approach, the project must incorporate similar land use characteristics to other projects in the Glendale Model TAZ. The threshold for residential uses is home-based VMT per capita 15 percent below the existing citywide average. A significant impact would occur if the proposed Project generated home-based VMT per capita exceeding this threshold.

VMT Analysis
In accordance with Glendale TIA Guidelines, a significant VMT impact will occur if the proposed Project generates a home-based VMT per capita exceeding a level of 15% below the existing Citywide average.

The City’s online VMT mapping tool states that the threshold (i.e., 15% below the existing Citywide average) home-based VMT per capita average for residential projects is 7.39 VMT per capita. The VMT analysis found in Appendix A of Appendix E of this SCEA, stated that the proposed Project’s home-based VMT per capita is 6.67 VMT per capita, which is below the threshold of 7.39 VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Accordingly, no mitigation measures related to VMT are required or recommended in conjunction with the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project includes new roadway design or introduces a new land use or features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if Project site access or other features were 218 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, October 30, 2020, https://www.glendaleplan.com/transportation-guidelines. Accessed August 2021. 515 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-203 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 designed in such a way as to create hazard conditions.

The proposed Project is located between Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, which provide access and connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle networks in the direct proposed Project vicinity. Sidewalks are provided on all streets within the immediate proposed Project vicinity, and the proposed Project would not alter existing pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed Project would close the existing driveways along Brand Boulevard, which would further enhance the pedestrian experience along the Project site’s Brand Boulevard frontage. Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways along the west side of Maryland Avenue. The northerly Maryland Avenue driveway on-site would provide access to the two above-grade levels of the on-site parking garage. The southerly Maryland Avenue driveway on-site would provide access to the four subterranean levels of the on-site parking garage. The proposed Project driveways are proposed to accommodate full vehicular access (i.e., leftturn and right turn ingress and egress turning movements).

While no bicycle infrastructure is provided on Brand Boulevard or Maryland Avenue, the proposed Project would not preclude the City from installing bicycle infrastructure in the future. The proposed Project would provide bicycle parking in accordance with City’s code. The proposed Project driveways are located along Maryland Avenue, which is designated as a Local Street north of Doran Street. The driveway placement along Maryland Avenue will allow for vehicular access to the Project site with limited potential for conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. As such, the proposed Project would not increase hazards, and therefore, the proposed Project will not result in a safety impact. No impact would occur. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within an established urban area that is well served by a roadway network. While it is expected that the majority of construction activities for the proposed Project would be confined on-site, construction activities may temporarily affect access on portions of adjacent streets during certain periods of the day.

The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes a map of the evacuation routes throughout the City.

These routes consist of the main thoroughfares within the City to be used by emergency response services during an emergency. If the situation warrants the evacuation of an area, these roadways serve as evacuation routes; otherwise, all roads should be considered disaster response routes. Evacuation routes are used to relocate residents and visitors from a hazardous or potentially hazardous area to a safer area.

Disaster routes serve as thoroughfares primarily for the movement of emergency response vehicles and access to critical facilities.

The Safety Element shows that Brand Boulevard is a designated City Disaster Response Route which is 516 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-204 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 located adjacent to the Project site to the west.219 The proposed Project does not involve changes to the existing street network or to existing emergency response plans, so the City’s emergency access plan would not be would not be altered. Long-term emergency access would continue to be provided. As such, emergency access will not be impeded, and adequate emergency access will be provided. As such, impacts due to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by LLG forecasted “Cumulative Plus Project” conditions based on the addition of traffic generated by the proposed Project plus completion and occupancy of related projects. Application of the City’s threshold criteria to the “Cumulative Plus Project” scenario indicates that the proposed Project is not expected to exceed the operations criteria at any of the six study intersections. Therefore, no measures are required or recommended with respect to these intersections under the “Cumulative Plus Project” conditions. As discussed above, the proposed Project’s home-based VMT per capita is 6.67 VMT per capita, which is below the threshold of 7.39 VMT per capita.

Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Per the Glendale TIA Guidelines, projects that do not result in a significant VMT impact would also result in a less that significant cumulative VMT impact. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No transportation mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No transportation mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No transportation mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
219 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, Plate P-3, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 517 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-205 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
518 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-206 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in PRC section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. “Tribal cultural resources,” as defined in PRC Section 21074, are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Additionally, PRC section 5020.1(k) defines "local register of historical resources" as a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. A project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR with cultural value to a California Native American tribe if such resource is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or if such resource is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. PRC 5024.1(c) 519 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-207 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 states that “[a] resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The Gabrielino tribe of Native Americans were the original inhabitants of the area that is now known as the City of Glendale. The Project site has been disturbed and excavated in the past and is currently developed with an existing two-story office building, associated surface parking lot, and a 6-story Chase Building. The proposed Project would remove only the existing office building, parking structure, and surface parking lot. The Chase Building, a historic resource as defined by CEQA, would remain on-site and the proposed Project would not cause the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the Chase Building would be materially impaired, resulting in a substantial adverse change (see Section 5.5, above, for additional discussion). However, there is the potential for discovery of TCRs during the excavation and grading for the four-level subterranean parking garage at a depth of approximately 43 feet below grade. In the event that resources are unearthed during proposed Project subsurface activities, all earth-disturbing work must be temporarily suspended or redirected until NAHC has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

With implementation of South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4, the City would evaluate the likelihood of archaeological and tribal cultural resources within the Project site and determine if a qualified archaeologist would be necessary to conduct a study to determine if a Phase I cultural resources survey is necessary prior to the approval of project plans, including full documentation of outreach to the Native American community. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the resources would be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist for eligibility of listing in the CRHR and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource. Additionally, South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-8 states that should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction, all activity in the vicinity of the proposed Project shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. Through compliance with the mitigation measures described above, potential proposed Project construction impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. 520 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-208 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes to identify potential significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as part of CEQA. Pursuant to AB 52, the City provided notification to the following two tribes on October 14, 2021 - Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians deferred consultation for the proposed Project to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. The City provided notification to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe on November 1, 2021 (See Appendix G: AB 52 Consultation Letters), requesting responses no later than 30 days after receipt of the letter. As of December 8, 2021, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe have not responded to the notification for consultation. As such, consultation has been deemed complete.

The Project site has been disturbed and excavated in the past and is currently developed with an existing two-story office building, associated parking structure, surface parking lots, and the Chase Building. The proposed Project would remove only the existing office building, associated parking structure and surface parking lot, and the Chase Building would remain on-site. As previously discussed, no known burial sites exist within the vicinity of the Project site and surrounding area. Thus, the potential for impact on known human remains or a resource determined to be significant by a California Native American tribe is low.

However, while the Project site is located in an urbanized area and has been disturbed by past development activities, the proposed Project includes subgrade preparation that would involve the excavation and grading of approximately 43 feet below grade. The proposed Project would comply with the State’s Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 should human remains be discovered on the Project site. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. Through compliance with the regulatory standards, no significant impact to tribal cultural resource is anticipated.

Additionally, South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-8 states that should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction, all activity in the vicinity of the proposed Project shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. Through compliance with the mitigation measures described above, potential proposed Project construction impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would have less than significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). It is not known if any of the related projects would result in significant impact to TCRs. 521 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-209 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Development of the proposed Project, in combination with the related projects in the Project site vicinity, would result in the continued redevelopment and revitalization of the surrounding area. Impacts to TCRs tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. It is unknown whether any other related project contains identified sites, features, places, or cultural landscapes that have been geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Further, related Project sites would be required to comply with PRC Section 21074, which governs TCRs. As the Project would fully comply to all applicable regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts would not be considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs).

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will further reduce the less than significant impacts of the proposed Project.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No tribal cultural resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
See MM 4.4-4 and MM 4.4-8 in Section 5.5: Cultural Resources, above.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No tribal cultural resources mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No tribal cultural resources mitigation measures were identified.

Impacts After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above will further reduce less than significant impacts. 522 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-210 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water, drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would increase water consumption, wastewater generation, electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, or telecommunication facilities to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the Project site would be exceeded.
523 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-211 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Water
Water for the City is provided by Glendale Water and Power (GWP).220 A portion of the City to the north is served by both Glendale and Crescenta Valley Water District (CVWD). The GWP provides approximately 34,000 potable and recycled water service connections to the City’s approximately 200,000 residents over 30.6 square miles.221 The Project site is located within the Gateway District of the DSP which is served by an existing system of GWP water lines. The City’s water supply consists of imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), groundwater produced from the Verdugo and San Fernando Basins, and recycled water produced at the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) facility. In 2020, the GWP supplied a total of 26,178 acre-feet (AF) consisting of groundwater, purchased or imported water, and recycled water.222
Table 5.19-1: Estimated Water Demand shows the estimated water consumption for the proposed Project estimated at 60,334 gallons per day (GPD) or 67.58 acre-feet per year (AFY), with a net increase of 59,014 GPD or 66.1AFY.

TABLE 5.19-1

ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND
Use
Area (SF)/
Residential Units Factorb
Daily Demand
(GPD)
Annual Demand
(AFY)
Multi-Family 294 du 200
gal/unit/day 58,800 65.86
Landscape
Open Space
4,901 SF
6,977 SF
130 gal/1,000
SF/day 1,534 1.72
Subtotal 60,334 67.58
Existing Twostory Office
Building 5,297 SF
250 gal/1,000
SF/day 1,320 1.48
Total Net
Increase in
Water Demanda
59,014 66.1
Notes:
a The existing Chase Building would remain on site. Though the existing Chase Building would continue to consume water, it would not result in a net increase compared to existing conditions. b Generation factor based on Los Angeles Sanitation District Wastewater Generation fact sheet multiplied by 1.25 220 City of Glendale, Utilities, https://www.glendaleca.gov/residents/utilities. Accessed August 2021. 221 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
222 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
524 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-212 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The City’s estimated total demand for water supply in 2020 was 21,372 AF with recycled water demand at approximately 1,811 AF and the water supplied for that same year consisting of 26,178 AF including recycled water production.223 As shown below in Table 5.19-2: Projected Water Supply, the projected water supply for the year 2025, would be approximately 39,346 AF. As such, the estimated water demand for the proposed Project would constitute approximately 0.17 percent of the total water available to the City under the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Additionally, water supply assessments were completed for the DSP in 2006 and the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan in 2016. The estimated water available for the DSP was calculated at 30,176 AFY of potable water and 7,950 AFY of recycled water in 2030.224 Water supply in 2025 was projected to be 39,540 AF for the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan Water Supply Assessment.225 The proposed Project would consume water within the estimates projected in the DSP and the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan water supply assessments.

TABLE 5.19-2

PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY
Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040
Estimated
Volume
Total
Right or
Safe
Yield
Estimated
Volume
Total
Right or
Safe
Yield
Estimated
Volume
Total
Right or
Safe
Yield
Estimated
Volume
Total
Right or
Safe
Yield
Recycled Water 9,490 -- 9,490 -- 9,490 -- 9,490 --
Purchased or
Imported Water
26,000 -- 26,000 -- 26,000 -- 26,000 --
Groundwater
(San Fernando Basin)
-- 5,500 -- 5,500 -- 5,500 -- 5,500
Groundwater
(Verdugo Basin)
3,856 -- 3,856 -- 3,856 -- 3,856 --
Total 39,346 5,500 39,346 5,500 39,346 5,500 39,346 5,500 Source: City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), Table 6-9: Water Supplies – Projected. 223 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
224 City of Glendale, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (2006), Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38596/636398816908230000. Accessed August 2021.
225 City of Glendale, South Glendale Community Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (2018), Appendix H: Water Supply Assessment.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/45657/636651702286270000. Accessed August 2021.
525 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-213 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The City’s drought management plan ensures that a mandatory conservation plan is in place to minimize the negative impacts of temporary water shortages resulting from droughts. Under the GMC, the City Manager is authorized to implement the plan, conduct necessary public outreach, and take enforcement actions to minimize the impact of the drought. The proposed Project would comply with any requirements under this plan.

In addition, the GMC Chapter 30.31, includes requirements for projects that would be subject to the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).226 The California Department of Water Resources requires a Landscape Design Plan and an Irrigation Design Plan to be developed for residential landscape projects in order to ensure that the applicant and/or designer(s) understand the intent of the MWELO and the sustainable principles included therein.227 Glendale’s Water Conservation Ordinance, the GMC Chapter 13.36, Section 13.36.060, already addresses the State’s mandates by having in effect, at all times, the City’s “no water waste” policy prohibiting certain uses and setting restrictions which include said mandates. The proposed Project would comply with the provisions of the GMC.

With these measures in place and the total water demand for the proposed Project able to be met by the projected supply, impacts to the City’s water supply would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated by the City is processed at the LAGWRP and the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) which processes the solid waste from the wastewater.228 The LAGWRP service area includes the east San Fernando Valley communities that are within and outside of the Los Angeles City limits. LAGWRP produces disinfected “tertiary treated” wastewater effluent that meets or exceeds the water quality standards, codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, for recycled water for nonpotable uses permitted by the State of California, such as landscape irrigation and industrial processing.

The City shares 50 percent ownership in LAGWRP with the City of Los Angeles and also receives 50 percent right to treatment capacity.229 LAGWRP has a treatment capacity of 20 million gallons per day (MGD) or 22,400 AFY. The City has a right of up to 11,200 AFY of the resulting treated wastewater. However, LAGWRP produces approximately 12,000 to 14,000 AFY of treated effluent on average, of which the City receives between 6,000 to 8,000 AFY. From 2010-2015, an average of 1,650 AFY of water was recycled in the City and in 2020 recycled water totaled 1,811 AF. The HTP is the City’s largest reclamation plant, 226 Municipal Code, Ch. 30, Sec. 30.31.010.
227 California State Department of Water Resources, Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-WaterEfficient-Landscape-Ordinance. Accessed August 2021. 228 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
229 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
526 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-214 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 processing on average 275 million gallons of wastewater on dry weather days and double the amount during the rainy season.230 The plant has a maximum daily flow of 450 million gallons of water per day (MGD) with peak wet weather flow of 800 MGD.

According to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the wastewater generation rate for five residential units or more would be 156 gallons/day/du.231 The LAGWRP facility has a treatment capacity of 20 MGD, of which the City has a right to 10 MGD. The current wastewater generated by the existing two-story office building is approximately 1,057 GPD. The net increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project with the existing use subtracted would be approximately 44,808 GPD232 or approximately 0.04 MGD. The proposed Project’s wastewater would represent 0.50 percent of the City’s anticipated daily capacity of the LAGWRP. Therefore, the estimated wastewater flow from the proposed Project would be accommodated within the existing capacity of the LAGWRP.

Stormwater
The Project site is located in a developed portion of the City that is currently served by stormwater infrastructure. Consistent with the GMC stating that all new developments involving one acre or greater of disturbed area and adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, the proposed Project shall implement the low impact development (LID) requirements as stated in the GMC.233 As such, impacts related to wastewater generation would be less than significant.

Electricity
Electric service is available and will be provided to the Project site in accordance with GWP regulations.

GWP has recently signed a 4-year contract (2021-2025) to deploy a smart thermostat demand response program for both residential and commercial GWP electric customers.234 Customers would have the option to receive a rebate on a smart thermostat and participate in demand response. Demand response means responding to high energy demands through customer reductions in energy usage. This program is voluntary and as such the proposed Project and its future residents would have the option to participate.

During construction and operation, the proposed Project would incorporate energy conservation features, comply with applicable regulations including anti-idling construction vehicle regulations, the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen code, and the Greener Glendale Plan. In addition, electricity infrastructure is typically expanded in response to increasing demand, and system expansion and improvements by GWP 230 City of Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment, Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant, https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s-lsh-wwd/s-lsh-wwd-cw/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p/s-lsh-wwd-cwp-hwrp?_adf.ctrl-state=lpuw4dmcs_82&_afrLoop=1329084760150993#!. Accessed August 2021. 231 Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Wastewater Generation Rate Sheet, https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531. Accessed August 2021. 232 Total wastewater for the proposed Project = 45,864 GPD 233 City Municipal Code, Ch. 13.43, Sec. 13.43.040.
234 Glendale Water and Power, Peak Savings Program, https://www.gwppeaksavings.com/. Accessed December 2021.
527 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-215 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 are ongoing. The proposed Project would be reviewed by GWP to identify necessary power facilities and service connections to meet proposed Project needs. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not necessitate the construction of off-site facilities or infrastructure improvements that would have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. As such, proposed Project impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Natural gas will be provided by SoCalGas to the proposed Project in accordance with the rules and regulations in effect at the time service is provided. The proposed Project would incorporate energy conservation features, comply with applicable regulations including the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen code, the Greener Glendale Plan, and incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary. In addition, natural gas infrastructure is typically expanded in response to increasing demand, and system expansion and improvements by SoCalGas occur as needed.235 SoCalGas will continue to expand delivery capacity as necessary to meet the increased demand within its service area. The proposed Project would incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as appropriate. As such, SoCalGas’s existing infrastructure and storage supplies are well-prepared for the long-term forecasts, including the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
As an urbanized area, adequate telecommunications services exist within in the immediate proposed Project vicinity and would be provided to the Project site. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not necessitate the construction of off-site telecommunication facilities that would have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. As such, proposed Project impacts to telecommunication facilities would be less than significant. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to be identified. The City’s water supply is sourced from purchased or imported water, groundwater, and recycled water. These sources are expected to support the City’s daily demand for water in the future.

Water provided to the Project site is sourced from GWP. The proposed Project would not directly require or result in the construction of potable water treatment facilities because it would connect into these existing water services. As previously described, the proposed Project would be within the growth projections used by the GWP 2020 UWMP, DSP water supply assessment, and partially adopted South 235 Southern California Gas Company, History of SoCalGas (2018), Available at: https://www.socalgas.com/ company-history, Accessed August 2021.
528 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-216 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Glendale Community Plan water supply assessment in forecasting cumulative future demand. proposed Project construction would consume less water than proposed Project operation, which as discussed previously, would have less than significant impact on water supplies.

Construction
As discussed previously, short-term water usage would occur during the construction phases of the proposed Project, mainly to control dust, mix concrete, clean equipment, and other related construction activities. These activities would occur incrementally throughout the build-out of the proposed Project and are temporary in nature. The amount of water used during construction would vary depending on the conditions of the soil, weather, size of the area being worked, and site-specific operations, but is not expected to be substantial. According to the 2020 UWMP, the total water supply for the City in 2025 was estimated at 39,346 AF with additional rights to pump 5,500 AF from the San Fernando Basin. The City’s demand has been consistently below the amount of water able to be supplied due to the City’s management including the drought management plan. As such, water supplies in the City would be able to accommodate the temporary and incremental use during the construction of the proposed Project.

Operation
As previously discussed in Table 5.19-1, the estimated total demand for the proposed Project during operation would be approximately 67.58 AFY or a net increase of 66.1 AFY with removal of the existing uses. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) developed a model to forecast retail demands and supplies for normal and dry years which were included in the UWMP. According to the 2020 UWMP, the total forecasted demand for water during a single dry season after conservation would be 25,708 AF for 2025, 25,671 AF for 2030, 25,499 AF for 2035, 25,620 AF for 2040, and 25,697 AF for 2045.236 The total supplies forecasted would include 10,210 AF for 2025, 13,270 AF for 2030, 13,270 AF for 2035, 13,270 AF for 2040, and 13,270 AF for 2045. The estimated water available for the DSP was calculated at 30,176 AFY of potable water and 7,950 AFY of recycled water in 2030.237 Water supply in 2025 were projected to be 39,540 AF for the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan Water Supply Assessment.238 The MWD projections show that potable local supplies would remain constant for the 20-year planning horizon for a single dry year or even increase due to the projected increased use of recycled water. The projections also show demand decreasing slightly through 2035 due to projected increased conservation measures, which outpace increased population. The difference between supply and demand results in a 236 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
237 City of Glendale, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (2006), Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38596/636398816908230000. Accessed August 2021.
238 City of Glendale, South Glendale Community Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (2018), Appendix H: Water Supply Assessment.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/45657/636651702286270000. Accessed August 2021.
529 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-217 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 deficit which equals the amount made up by MWD imported water each year. The deficit decreases going forward due to the planned increased use of recycled water, which frees up more local potable supply.

The proposed Project total water demand would constitute 67.58 AFY or a net increase of 66.1 AFY with removal of the existing use. This would constitute approximately 0.26 percent of the estimated demand during a single dry season in the year 2025. With the City’s increase in use of recycled water, water reduction standards for landscaping, and comprehensive drought management plan, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant effect on water supply reliability. c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project would normally have a significant wastewater impact if: (a) the project would cause a measurable increase in wastewater flows to a point where, and a time when, a sewer’s capacity is already constrained or that would cause a sewer’s capacity to become constrained; or (b) the project’s additional wastewater flows would substantially or incrementally exceed the future scheduled capacity of any one treatment plant by generating flows greater than those anticipated in the Wastewater Facilities Plan or General Plan and its elements.

As previously discussed, proposed Project construction water generation would be sufficiently accommodated as part of the remaining 10 MGD treatment capacity of the LAGWRP. The proposed Project would generate approximately 44,808 GPD or 0.04 MGD over existing uses.239 Given that the LAGWTP is currently operating below capacity, the additional wastewater generated by the proposed Project would not result in the plant’s exceeding capacity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree such that the existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. The determination of whether a project results in a significant impact on solid waste shall be made considering the following factors: (a) amount of projected waste generation, diversion, and disposal during demolition, construction, and operation of the project, considering proposed design and operational features that could reduce typical waste generation rates; (b) need for additional solid waste collection route, or recycling or disposal facility to adequately handle 239 Generation factor based on Los Angeles Sanitation District Wastewater. 530 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-218 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 project-generated waste; and (c) whether the project conflicts with solid waste policies and objectives in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) or its updates, the Solid Waste Management Policy Plan (SWMPP), or the Framework Element of the Curbside Recycling Program, including consideration of the land use-specific waste diversion goals contained in Volume 4 of the SRRE.

In response to State-mandated waste reduction goals set forth in CalGreen, and as part of the City’s commitment to sustainable development, the City adopted an ordinance that requires certain demolition and/or construction projects to divert at least 65 percent of waste either through recycling, salvage, or deconstruction.240 The construction and demolition (C&D) Program—which took effect on November 5, 2007—aims to encourage permit applicants to recycle all C&D materials through a refundable performance deposit. The C&D program also encourages the use of green building techniques in new construction and promotes reuse or salvaging of recyclable materials in demolition, deconstruction, and construction projects.

Implementation of the Project site would result in an increase of 247 1-bedroom and 47 2-bedroom apartments. This would be in addition to the existing Chase Building that would remain on site. Solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be deposited at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which is owned by the City of Glendale, or one of the landfills located within the County of Los Angeles. The Scholl Canyon Landfill has a maximum capacity of 3,400 tons per day.241 The Integrated Waste Diversion of the Public Works Department would review the proposed Project with respect to waste generation and disposal.

As noted before, the Scholl Canyon Landfill would serve the proposed Project’s solid waste generation with a maximum capacity of 3,400 tons per day. The proposed Project would result in increased generation of solid waste and increased demand for solid waste services. Total solid waste generated by the proposed Project during operation is estimated at approximately 1,176 ppd, a net increase of 208.83 tons per year as shown in Table 5.19-3: Estimated Solid Waste Generation. The approximately 215 tons of solid waste per year generated by the proposed Project would be a net increase of approximately 209 tons per year with the removal of the existing use. The proposed Project’s 0.59 tons of solid waste per day would require approximately 0.02 percent of the currently available daily capacity at the Scholl Canyon Landfill facility. The total amount of solid waste produced by the proposed Project would equate to an estimated 214.62 tons per year, 65 percent of which must be diverted or 139.50 tons per year. With a maximum capacity of 3,400 tons per day, this additional amount generated by the proposed Project would be easily accommodated by the facility. Impacts would be less than significant. 240 City Municipal Code, Ch. 8.58, Sec. 8.58.060.
241 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Scholl Canyon Landfill, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3531?siteID=1000. Accessed August 2021. 531 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-219 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.19-3

ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Use Quantity
Solid Waste
Generation Rate
(pounds/du/day) a Total (pounds/day)
Residential 294 du 4 1,176
Subtotal Increase
in Solid Waste
(tons/year)
-- -- 214.62
Existing Two-story
Office Building
5,297 SF 0.006 31.78
Less Existing to be
Removed Subtotal
(tons/year)
-- -- -5.79
Total Net Increase
in Solid Waste
(tons/year)b
-- -- 208.83
Notes:
a Source: CalRecyle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed August 2021. b The existing Chase Building would remain on site. Though the existing Chase Building would continue to generate solid waste, it would not result in a net increase compared to existing conditions.
e. Would the project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project would generate solid waste that is not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Solid waste management in the State is primarily guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which emphasizes resource conservation through reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. AB 939 establishes an integrated waste management hierarchy consisting of (in order of priority): (1) source reduction; (2) recycling and composting; and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

In addition, AB 1327 provided for the development of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, which requires the adoption of an ordinance by any local agency governing the provision of adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Furthermore, AB 341, which became effective on July 1, 2012, requires businesses and public entities that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week and multifamily dwellings with five or more units, to recycle. The purpose of AB 341 is to reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste from landfills and expand opportunities for recycling in California. In October 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste generated per week. Specifically, beginning April 1, 2016, businesses that generate eight cubic yards of organic waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services. On September 19, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) into California law 532 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-220 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 to supplement AB 1826, establishing statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction goals consisting of reducing the amount of organic material disposed in landfills by 50% from the 2014 level by the year 2020, and reducing the amount of organic material disposed in landfills by 75% from the 2014 level by the year 2025.242 In addition, beginning January 1, 2017, businesses that generate four cubic yards of organic waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services. Mandatory recycling of organic waste is the next step toward achieving California’s recycling and GHG emission goals. Organic waste such as green materials and food materials are recyclable through composting and mulching, and through anaerobic digestion, which can produce renewable energy and fuel. Reducing the number of organic materials sent to landfills and increasing the production of compost and mulch are part of the AB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) Scoping Plan.

In addition to this, the Greener Glendale Plan outlines objectives and strategies for achieving their Zero Waste Goal which aims to achieve a 90 percent landfill diversion rate by 2030.243 These goals include promoting Zero Waste through community education and outreach, reducing the use of disposable or non-renewable products, improving commercial waste diversion, and expanding waste diversion services.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable regulations associated with solid waste.

The proposed Project would also comply with AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, SB 1383, and City waste diversion goals as presented in the GMC and the Greener Glendale Plan, as applicable. Since the proposed Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Water
The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis on water supply is the GWP service area (i.e., the City). GWP, as a public water service provider, is required to prepare and periodically update an UWMP to plan and provide for water supplies to serve existing and projected demands. The 2020 UWMP prepared by GWP accounts for existing development within the City, as well as projected growth through the year 2045.

Under the provisions of SB 610, GWP is required to prepare a comprehensive water supply assessment for every new development "project" (as defined by Section 10912 of the Water Code) within its service area that reaches certain thresholds. The types of projects that are subject to the requirements of SB 610 tend to be larger projects that may or may not have been included within the growth projections of the 242 SB 1383, Short-lived climate pollutants: methane emissions: dairy and livestock: organic waste: landfills, approved September 19, 2016,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383. Accessed December 2021.
243 City of Glendale, Office of Sustainability, Greener Glendale Plan, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management-services/office-ofsustainability/greener-glendale. Accessed August 2021. 533 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-221 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 2020 UWMP. The water supply assessment for projects would evaluate the quality and reliability of existing and projected water supplies, as well as alternative sources of water supply and measures to secure alternative sources if needed.

On May 31, 2018, Governor Brown signed two long-term water-use efficiency bills: AB 1668 and SB 606.

These bills are designed to help the State better prepare for droughts and climate change. They require that by January 1, 2025, the indoor residential use will reduce to 55 gallons per day (gpd), 52.5 gpd from 2025 to 2030, and 50 gpd beginning January 1, 2030.

With the adoption of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SB X7-7, the State of California was required to reduce urban per capita water use by 20 percent by the year 2020 (aka 20 by 2020). Each retail supplier preparing a 2020 UWMP must demonstrate whether it has achieved its 2020 water use target. In the 2010 UWMP, Glendale’s 2020 water use target was determined to be 137 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Glendale’s 2020 water use was 104 GPCD, far outperforming the required target. The City has also developed its own Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which is proposed separate from the UWMP and would be approved by City Council. The purpose of the WSCP is essentially to identify what actions the City can take in the event of a water shortage or emergency.

Furthermore, through GWP’s 2020 UWMP process and the City's Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the City will meet all new demand for water due to projected population growth to the year of 2040, through a combination of water conservation and water recycling. These plans outline the creation of sustainable sources of water for the City to reduce dependence on imported supplies. GWP is planning to achieve these goals by expanding its water conservation program. To increase recycled water use, GWP is expanding the recycled water distribution system to provide water for irrigation, industrial use, and groundwater recharge.

Compliance of the proposed Project and related projects with regulatory requirements that promote water conservation such as the GMC, including the California Green Building Code, as well as AB 32, would also assist in assuring that adequate water supply is available on a cumulative basis.

Water supply assessments were conducted for the DSP in 2006 and the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan in 2016. The estimated water available for the DSP was calculated at 30,176 AFY of potable water and 7,950 AFY of recycled water in 2030.244 Water supply in 2025 was projected to be 39,540 AF for the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan Water Supply Assessment.245 244 City of Glendale, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (2006), Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38596/636398816908230000. Accessed August 2021.
245 City of Glendale, South Glendale Community Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (2018), Appendix H: Water Supply Assessment.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/45657/636651702286270000. Accessed August 2021.
534 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-222 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 According to the estimated water demand for the proposed Project, future water supply would be sufficient for the Project and consume water within the estimates projected in the DSP and the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan water supply assessments. No additional supply would be necessary. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts and, as such, would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, any related projects would be required to analyze water consumption based on these assessments and if additional supply would be needed the project would require a water supply assessment to be completed and address the feasibility of the project. Based on the above, it is anticipated that GWP would be able to supply the water demands of the proposed Project as well as future growth, including the five related projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts on water supply would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be processed at the LAGWRP and the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) which processes the solid waste from the wastewater. As previously stated, the City shares 50 percent ownership in LAGWRP with the City of Los Angeles and also receives 50 percent right to treatment capacity.246 LAGWRP has a treatment capacity of 20 million gallons per day (MGD) or 22,400 AFY. The City has a right of up to 11,200 AFY of the resulting treated wastewater. The HTP is the City’s largest reclamation plant, processing on average 275 million gallons of wastewater on dry weather days and double the amount during the rainy season.247 The plant has a maximum daily flow of 450 million gallons of water per day (MGD) with peak wet weather flow of 800 MGD. According to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the wastewater generation rate for the existing two-story office building is approximately 1,057 GPD.248 The net increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project with the existing use subtracted would be approximately 44,808 GPD249 or approximately 0.04 MGD. The proposed Project’s wastewater would represent 0.50 percent of the City’s anticipated daily capacity of the LAGWRP.

Based on these results and the capacity of the LAGWRP and the HTP, the proposed Project operation’s contribution to cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.

Stormwater
Development of the proposed Project in conjunction with related projects would result in an intensification of existing prevailing land uses in an already urbanized area of Glendale and could further 246 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021.
247 City of Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment, Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant, https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s-lsh-wwd/s-lsh-wwd-cw/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p/s-lsh-wwd-cwp-hwrp?_adf.ctrl-state=lpuw4dmcs_82&_afrLoop=1329084760150993#!. Accessed August 2021. 248 Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Wastewater Generation Rate Sheet, https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531. Accessed August 2021. 249 Total wastewater for the proposed Project = 45,864 GPD 535 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-223 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 increase regional demands on stormwater facilities. A significant impact may occur if the volume of stormwater runoff would increase to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving a Project site, resulting in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. As discussed earlier, the proposed Project shall implement the low impact development (LID) requirements as stated in the GMC.250 Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to NPDES under the California General Permit since the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of one acre or more of soil.251 As a result of these measures, the amount of peak stormwater flows from new development would decrease as compared to older sites that did not include recent LID requirements. Also, with the addition of pervious surfaces such as landscaping and open space, the proposed Project would decrease the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces and thus decrease the amount of runoff to storm drains. The related projects would also be subject to these applicable requirements. Therefore, the Project and related projects would not result in cumulative stormwater impacts.

Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal is a regional issue addressed by regional agencies, in this case the County of Los Angeles. The County promotes the efforts of individual jurisdictions to maximize waste reduction and recycling, expand existing landfills, and promote alternative technologies to reduce waste. In response to State-mandated waste reduction goals set forth in CalGreen, and as part of the City’s commitment to sustainable development, the City adopted an ordinance that requires certain demolition and/or construction projects to divert at least 65 percent of waste either through recycling, salvage, or deconstruction.252 As noted before, the Scholl Canyon Landfill would serve the proposed Project’s solid waste generation with a maximum capacity of 3,400 tons per day. However, the Greener Glendale Plan outlines objectives and strategies for achieving their Zero Waste Goal which aims to achieve a 90 percent landfill diversion rate by 2030.253 These goals include promoting Zero Waste through community education and outreach, reducing the use of disposable or non-renewable products, improving commercial waste diversion, and expanding waste diversion services. As discussed above, SB 1383 establishes statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction goals consisting of reducing the amount of organic material disposed in landfills by 50% from the 2014 level by the year 2020, and reducing the amount of organic material disposed in landfills by 75% from the 2014 level by the year 2025. Like the proposed Project, related projects would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste, including SB 1383 and those pertaining to waste reduction and recycling. Detailed components regarding waste reduction and recycling would be finalized for each related project on a project-by-project basis at the time of plan submittal to the City for the necessary building permits and reviews conducted pursuant to the California Green Building Code, as applicable. As such, impacts to the 250 City Municipal Code, Ch. 13.43, Sec. 13.43.040.
251 City Municipal Code, Ch. 13.42, Sec. 13.42.050.
252 City Municipal Code, Ch. 8.58, Sec. 8.58.060.
253 City of Glendale, Office of Sustainability, Greener Glendale Plan, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management-services/office-ofsustainability/greener-glendale. Accessed August 2021. 536 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-224 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 solid waste from related projects would be less than significant. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not generate solid waste that would exceed landfill capacities and the recycling of solid waste related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Electricity
As with the proposed Project, during construction and operation, other related projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features, comply with applicable regulations including antiidling construction vehicle regulations, the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen code, and incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary. Like the Project, related projects within the GWP service area would also be anticipated to incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as necessary. Each of the related projects would be reviewed by GWP to identify necessary power facilities and service connections to meet their respective needs. Project applicants would be required to provide for the needs of their individual projects, thereby contributing to the electrical infrastructure in the proposed Project area. the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to electricity plans as well as infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

Natural Gas
As with the proposed Project, during construction and operation, other future related projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features, comply with applicable regulations including antiidling construction vehicle regulations, the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen code, and incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary. In addition, natural gas infrastructure is typically expanded in response to increasing demand, and system expansion and improvements by SoCalGas occur as needed.

Related projects within its service area, would also be anticipated to incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as appropriate. The proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to natural gas plans as well as infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

Telecommunications
As previously stated, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not necessitate the construction of off-site telecommunication facilities as the Project site is located within an urbanized area where telecommunications facilities are established. Telecommunications are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The City will review the related projects to identify necessary new facilities and service connections to meet their respective needs. Furthermore, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to telecommunications as well as infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. 537 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-225 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No utilities and service systems mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No utilities and service systems mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No utilities and service systems mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
538 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-226 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard zones, would the
project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
form a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area of land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.254 Furthermore, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan as the Project site is not located near a non-compliant access road as depicted in the City’s Safety Element.255 The City’s Safety Element shows that Brand Boulevard is a designated City Disaster Response Route which is located adjacent to the Project site to the west. However, the proposed Project does not involve changes to the existing street network or to existing emergency response plans, so the City’s emergency access plan would not be would not be altered. As such, there would be less than significant impacts related to substantially impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan from construction or operation of the proposed Project.
254 CalFire, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 2021.
255 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, Ch. 4 Fire Hazards, Plate 4-3. 539 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-227 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b. Due to the slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The proposed Project is located on relatively flat land and would not change or exacerbate current risks of wildfire or pollutant concentrations from a wildfire to Project occupants. Additionally, the proposed Project is not located in or near any City or State responsibility areas of land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.256 As such, there would be no impact from construction due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or on going impacts to the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within an area of State Responsibility of lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.257 The proposed Project would not require the installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. proposed Project operation would not generate traffic in excess of current VMT or level of service thresholds and would not result in maintenance of associated infrastructure or improvements which might exacerbate fire risk.258 Future driveway and building configurations would comply with applicable fire code requirements for emergency evacuation, including proper emergency exits for patrons, employees, and residents. Project site access and circulation plans would be subject to review and approval by the GFD. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located in or near a State Responsibility area of lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Zone.259 The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City and does not include wildlands or high fire hazard terrain. In addition, as previously discussed in Section 256 CalFire, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 2021.
257 CalFire, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 2021.
258 Transportation Impact Analysis, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG), June 22, 2021. Appendix E. 259 CalFire, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 2021.
540 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-228 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project site is not located near a potential flooding, landslide area, or would result in potential drainage changes. Furthermore, proposed Project construction and operation would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and therefore no impact would occur.

Cumulative Impacts
The Project site does not contain any wildland features and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as delineated by the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP).260 As such, the related projects would have no cumulative wildfire impacts. Additionally, any related projects would be subject to established guidelines and building code regulations and construction procedures pertaining to fire and seismic hazards. All related projects would be subject to review by the GFD for compliance with the Fire Code and Building Code regulations related to emergency response, emergency access, and fire safety. Based on the above considerations, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts associated with wildfires.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No wildfire mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No wildfire mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No wildfire mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
260 CalFire, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 2021.
541 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-229 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur only if the proposed Project would have an identified potentially significant impact on fish or wildlife species, including habitat and population, on a plant or animal community, including elimination of such communities or reduction or restriction of the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or historical, archeological, or paleontological resources.

As discussed in Section 5.4: Biological Resources, the proposed Project is in an urbanized area that is not located in a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan that would apply to the proposed Project. No wildlife corridors, native wildlife nursery sites, or bodies of water in which fish are present are located on the Project site or in the surrounding area.
542 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-230 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 As discussed in Section 5.5: Cultural Resources, the Historic Report concluded the Chase Building is a historical resource as defined by CEQA and appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

The proposed Project would not cause the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the Chase Building would be materially impaired, resulting in a substantial adverse change (see Section 5.5, above, for additional discussion). The proposed Project would implement mitigation measures South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-1, which requires that all properties listed on the National Register/California Register/Glendale Register and properties identified with status codes 1 through 5 in a survey or individual resource assessment will require further analysis under CEQA prior to the approval of any entitlements or issuance of permits. The proposed Project would also implement Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-4(c) and MM 4.4-4(d), which require a development project to consider the impacts to the known historic resource and, if needed, include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance and an intensive level survey to determine whether the property is a historic resource under CEQA. The June 2022 Historic Resources Technical Report provides an intensive level survey of the subject property and concluded while the proposed Project is located on the same site as an eligible historic resource, the Chase Building would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would also implement South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4 and 4.4-8 With implementation of South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4, the City would evaluate the likelihood of archaeological resources within the Project site and determine if a qualified archaeologist would be necessary to conduct a study to determine if a Phase I cultural resources survey is necessary prior to the approval of project plans. Additionally, South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-8 states that should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction, all activity in the vicinity of the proposed Project shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. Through implementation of the mitigation measures described above, potential proposed Project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Since proposed Project related excavation is expected to extend to 43 feet below existing surface, paleontological resources could be discovered and result in a potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-5 and MM PALEO-1 would be implemented in the event any unknown paleontological resources are discovered during grading and excavation activities and reduce impacts should a previously unknown paleontological resource be identified. Based on the preceding analysis in Section 5.7: Geology and Soils, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

The proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce, or threaten any fish or wildlife species (endangered or otherwise), or eliminate important examples of the major periods of 543 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-231 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 California history or pre-history. Therefore, impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project, in conjunction with related projects, would result in impacts that would be less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. In accordance with CEQA, the analysis of cumulative impacts need not be as in-depth as what is performed relative to the project, but instead is to “be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.”
Related projects in the area include multi-family and commercial land uses. With regard to cumulative effects on agricultural, biological, and mineral resources, the Project site is located in an urbanized area; therefore, other developments occurring in the area of the proposed Project would largely occur on previously disturbed land. Thus, no cumulative impact to these resources would occur. Impacts related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and hazards and hazardous materials are generally confined to a specific site and do not affect off-site areas. The City’s approved and pending projects in the vicinity combined with the proposed Project may result in cumulative effects in other environmental issues areas due to the aggregate development within an already urbanized area.

However, project-related impacts that require mitigation measures to reduce the level of significance would not result in cumulative impacts when combined with the City’s other related projects. Through the analyses, no significant cumulative impacts were identified for the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have cumulatively considerable effects, and as such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts, as discussed in the preceding sections.

Based on the preceding environmental analysis, the proposed Project would not have a significant environmental effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Any potentially significant impacts to humans would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of the applicable mitigation measures identified within this analysis.
544 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 6.0-1 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

6.0 MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires a Lead Agency to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” In addition, Section 15097(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a public agency adopt a program for monitoring or reporting mitigation measures and project revisions, which it has required to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. This MMP has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The City of Glendale is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project and therefore is responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed, the Lead Agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.

A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Pursuant to PRC 21155.2.(a), the evaluation of the proposed Project’s impacts in the SCEA incorporates all feasible mitigation measures from prior applicable environmental impact reports, takes into consideration the project design features (PDF) and applies mitigation measures (MM) needed to avoid or reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. This MMP is designed to monitor implementation of the PDFs and MMs identified for the proposed Project.

6.2 ORGANIZATION
As shown on the following pages, each identified project design feature (PDF) and mitigation measure for the proposed Project is listed and categorized by environmental impact area, with accompanying identification of the following
• Enforcement Agency: the agency with the power to enforce the PDF or MM. • Monitoring Agency: the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation, and development are made.
• Monitoring Phase: the phase of the proposed Project during which the PDF or MM shall be monitored. • Monitoring Frequency: the frequency at which the PDF or MM shall be monitored. • Action Indicating Compliance: the action by which the Enforcement or Monitoring Agency indicates that compliance with the identified PDF or required MM has been implemented. 545 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-2 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND ENFORCEMENT
This MMRP shall be enforced throughout all phases of the proposed Project. The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing each PDF and MM and shall be obligated to provide certification, as identified below, to the appropriate monitoring and enforcement agencies that each PDF and MM has been implemented. The Applicant shall maintain records demonstrating compliance with each PDF and MM. Such records shall be made available to the City upon request.

During the construction phase and prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall retain an independent Construction Monitor (either via the City or through a third-party consultant), approved by the Department of City Planning, who shall be responsible for monitoring implementation of PDFs and MMs during construction activities consistent with the monitoring phase and frequency set forth in this MMP.

The Construction Monitor shall also prepare documentation of the Applicant’s compliance with the PDFs and MMs during construction every 90 days in a form satisfactory to the Community Development Department, Planning Division. The Applicant and Construction Monitor must sign the documentation and include it as part of the Applicant’s Compliance Report. The Construction Monitor shall be obligated to immediately report to the Enforcement Agency any non-compliance with the MMs and PDFs within two businesses days if the Applicant does not correct the non-compliance within a reasonable time of notification to the Applicant by the monitor or if the non-compliance is repeated. Such non-compliance shall be appropriately addressed by the Enforcement Agency.

6.4 PROGRAM MODIFICATION
After review and approval of the final MMRP by the Lead Agency, minor changes, and modifications to the MMRP are permitted, but can only be made subject to City approval as the Lead Agency. The City, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or departments, will determine the adequacy of any proposed change or modification. This flexibility is necessary considering the nature of the MMRP and the need to protect the environment. No changes will be permitted unless the MMP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA, as determined by the Lead Agency.

The proposed Project shall be in substantial conformance with the PDFs and MMs contained in this MMRP.

The enforcing departments or agencies may determine substantial conformance with PDFs and MMs in the MMRP in their reasonable discretion. If the department or agency cannot find substantial conformance, a PDF or MM may be modified or deleted as follows: the enforcing department or agency, or the decision maker for a subsequent discretionary project related approval finds that the modification or deletion complies with CEQA, which could include the preparation of additional environmental clearance documents, if necessary, to analyze the impacts from the modifications to or deletion of the PDFs or MMs. Any addendum or subsequent CEQA clearance shall explain why the PDF or MM is no longer needed, not feasible, or the other basis for modifying or deleting the PDF or MM, and that the modification will not result in a new significant impact consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Under 546 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-3 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 this process, the modification or deletion of a PDF or MM shall not, in and of itself, require a modification to any proposed Project discretionary approval unless the Director of Community Development or his designee also finds that the change to the PDF or MM results in a substantial change to the proposed Project or the non-environmental conditions of approval.

6.5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Air Quality
Mitigation Measures
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

PMM AQ-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:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB approved fleet. Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment should also be required.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. 547 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-4 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements—saves fuel and reduces emissions.
m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts because of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.
p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, except for on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
q) Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies.

Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.
548 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-5 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
i. Disclose potential health impacts to prospective sensitive receptors from living in close proximity to freeways or other sources of air pollution and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration systems when windows are open, or residents are outside.
ii. Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site before a permit of occupancy is issued.
iii. Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents.
iv. Provide information to residents on where MERV filters can be purchased. v. Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
vi. Identify the responsible entity such as future residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time.
vii. Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost-sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
viii. Set criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
ix. Develop a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
x. Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control 549 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-6 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
xi. Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
xii. Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. xiii. Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. xiv. Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer. xv. Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less. xvi. The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:

1. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.

2. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.

3. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
xvii. The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities.
xviii. The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator on site, includes:
550 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-7 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

1. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.

2. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.

3. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
a. Source of supply
b. Quantity of fuel
c. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
i. Install programmable thermostat timers
ii. Obtain Third-party HVAC commissioning and verification of energy savings (to be grouped with exceedance of Title 24).
iii. Install energy efficient appliances (Typical reductions for energy-efficient appliances can be found in the Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships Annual Reports.)
iv. Install higher efficacy public street and area lighting v. Limit outdoor lighting requirements
vii. Establish on-site renewable or carbon neutral energy systems – generic, solar power and wind power
viii. Utilize a combined heat and power system
x. Locate project near bike path/bike lane
xi. Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks, and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers.
xiv. Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects xviii. Provide ride-sharing programs

1. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles

2. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles

3. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides 551 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-8 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

4. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during proposed Project plan check; continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting • Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans, Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR:

MM 4.2-1: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce construction related emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy AQ-1: Require conditions of approval for construction projects near sensitive receptors and/or that would generate substantial levels of mass emission to implement emissions reduction strategies such as:
(a) Install PM or other exhaust reducing filters on generators; (b) Require construction contractors to use off-road equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification for off-road diesel engines or Best Available Control Technology (BACT);
(c) Use of electric-powered construction equipment;
(d) Phase construction activities;
(e) Provide grid or renewable electricity in place of generators; (f) Use alternative fuel such as high-performance renewable diesel for construction equipment and vehicles;
(g) Ensure that construction equipment is maintained and tuned according to manufacturer specifications; and/or
(h) Require construction contractors to provide clear signage that posts the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2449 (d) (3) and 2485 requirement to reduce idling time to 5 minutes or less at construction sites.

Policy AQ-2: Require area businesses, residents, and partnering organizations to provide information about best management practices that can be implemented on a voluntary basis to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs, which encourage 552 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-9 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 voluntary reduction of construction exhaust emissions, as well as exposure to these emissions;
Policy AQ-3: The City shall continue to work with CARB and SCAQMD in order to protect residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution; and Policy AQ-4: The City shall review proposed development projects to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce construction emissions for VOC, NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) through project design.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting • Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans, Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
MM 4.2-2: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce operational emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy AQ-5: Create a more multi-modal transportation network of comprehensive, integrated, and connected network of transportation facilities and services for all modes of travel, which would lead to reduced VMT, thereby reducing operational emissions; Policy AQ-6: Provide a complete streets design that balances the diverse needs of users of the public right-of-way, which would reduce VMT, thereby reducing operational emissions;
Policy AQ-7: Provide and manage a balanced approach to parking that meets economic development and sustainability goals by reducing parking demand, managing parking supply, and requiring alternative fuel vehicle parking; Policy AQ-8: Implement traffic calming features such as sidewalks, protected bike lanes, reduced speed limits, narrow lane widths, lane reconfiguration, and roundabouts; Policy AQ-9: Facilitate transit-oriented land uses and pedestrian-oriented design to encourage transit ridership;
Policy AQ-10: Support high-density transit-oriented and compact development within the City to improve transit ridership and to reduce automobile use and traffic congestion; 553 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-10 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Policy AQ-11: The City shall review discretionary proposed development projects to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce operational emissions for VOC, NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) through project design; and Policy AQ-12: Encourage the use of low or no VOC-emitting materials. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting
• Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
MM 4.2-3: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce exposure of new sensitive receptors to pollution sources associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy HRA-1: The City shall minimize exposure of new sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), to the extent possible, and consider distance, orientation, and wind direction when siting sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC- and PM2.5-emitting sources in order to minimize exposure to health risk; and Policy HRA-2: At the time of discretionary approval of new sensitive land uses proposed in close proximity to existing TAC sources, the City shall require development projects to implement applicable best management practices, as necessary and feasible, that will reduce exposure to TACs and PM2.5. Available measures include, but are not limited to, barriers (e.g., vegetation, concrete walls) between the source and the receptor, high efficiency filtration with mechanical ventilation, and portable air filters. Specific reduction measures will be evaluated and determined depending on proposed land uses, proximity to TAC sources, and feasibility. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting
• Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
554 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-11 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 MM 4.2-4: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce impacts associated with objectionable odors associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy Odor-1: Land uses that have the potential to emit objectionable odorous emissions and conflict with SCAQMD Rule 402 (e.g., dry cleaning establishments, restaurants, and gasoline stations) shall be located as far away as possible from existing and proposed sensitive receptors or downwind of nearby receptors; and Policy Odor-2: If an odor-emitting facility is to occupy space in commercial or retail areas, odor control devices shall be installed to mitigate the exposure of receptors to objectionable odorous emissions. The use of setbacks, site design considerations, and emission controls are typically sufficient to ensure that receptors located near commercial or retail uses would not be exposed to odorous emissions on a frequent basis
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Operation
• Monitoring Frequency:
• Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; Issuance of applicable building permit
City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR:

MM 4.2-2(a): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all diesel-powered equipment used be retrofitted with after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that they are readily available in the South Coast Air Basin. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(b): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all heavy-duty dieselpowered equipment operating and refueling at the project site use low-NOX diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective (up to 125 percent of the cost 555 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-12 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 of California Air Resources Board diesel) in the South Coast Air Basin (this does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the project site). Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(c): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) be utilized to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(d): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer’s specification for the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
556 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-13 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 MM 4.2-2(e): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment, including trucks and heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(f): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible.

Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(g): As required by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403—Fugitive Dust, all construction activities that are capable of generating fugitive dust are required to implement dust control measures during each phase of project development to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air. These measures include the following:
• Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas • Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas
• Watering of exposed surfaces three times daily
• Watering of all unpaved haul roads three times daily
• Covering all stockpiles with tarp
• Reduction of vehicle speed on unpaved roads
557 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-14 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Post signs on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less • Sweep streets adjacent to the project site at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
• Pave roads and road shoulders that have exposed soil
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(h): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction equipment used for construction of projects meets or exceed Tier 2 standards use emulsified diesel fuels, and equip construction equipment with oxidation catalysts, particulate traps or other verified or certified retrofit technologies to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(i): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators be used during 558 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-15 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 construction activities to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(j): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction parking be configured to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(k): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that temporary traffic controls such as a flag person be provided during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(l): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that dedicated turn lanes be provided and/or utilized for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project 559 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-16 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(m): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system be scheduled to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(n): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction trucks be routed away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas to the extent feasible.

Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(o): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that traffic flow during construction be improved by signal synchronization to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. 560 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-17 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(p): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that high-pressure-low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50% or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(q): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that required coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113 be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(r): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction materials that do not require painting be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
561 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-18 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(s): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that pre-painted construction materials be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-6: Trash receptacles within the project area will be required to have lids that enable convenient collection and loading and will be emptied on a regular basis, in compliance with City of Glendale regulations for the collection of solid waste. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works
• Monitoring Phase: Operation
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of occupancy permit Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures
City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR:

MM 4.3-1 If future projects implemented under the SGCP are constructed during the bird-nesting season (June 1-July 31) a Biological Monitor shall survey the construction area and establish a buffer area for nesting activity or juvenile birds. Surveys shall be conducted 5 days prior to any construction activity. If protected bird species are observed nesting within 100 feet for non-raptors and 300 feet for raptor species of the nearest work site, 562 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-19 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the biological monitor shall establish a buffer around the tree, and no construction activities shall be permitted within the restricted area, unless directly related to the management or protection of the protected species. If the tree is designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30th, or until the adults and young have fledged or left the nest.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR:

MM 4.4-1 All properties listed on the National Register/California Register/Glendale Register and properties identified with status codes 1 through 5 in a survey or individual resource assessment will require further analysis under CEQA prior to the approval of any entitlements or issuance of permits.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of demolition or grading permit MM 4.4-4: To prevent impacts to cultural resources, the City shall evaluate the likelihood of the project site to contain archaeologist resources to ensure future projects that require ground disturbance are subject to a Phase I cultural resource inventory on a projectspecific basis prior to approval of project plans. The study shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist following the Secretary of Interior Standards. a) The City shall consult with the local Native American representatives for future development projects. Any cultural resources inventory shall include a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey by the qualified archaeologist, (when 563 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-20 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 appropriate); and formal recordation of all identified archaeological resources and significance evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report. The report shall also include full documentation of outreach to the Native American community.

The Phase I survey shall be conducted prior to any CEQA review of development projects.
b) If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require the resources to be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist for eligibility of listing in the CRHR and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the appropriate Native American groups for prehistoric resources. Preservation shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing.

If resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in cultural resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provision of Section 21083.2 of CEQA.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit; continuous field inspections during construction
• Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a qualified archaeological monitor
MM 4.4-8: Should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction of future projects under the SGCP, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be significant, the tribal monitor and archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City, appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), 564 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-21 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. If it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), the tribal monitor and qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21083.2.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Periodic
• Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a tribal monitor and archaeologist
City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR:

MM 4.4-4(c) In the event that a future development project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing a known historic resource, environmental review of the development project shall consider the impacts to the known historic resource and, if needed, shall include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance. If the Project would demolish a historic resource or if it is determined that the development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historic significance, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact, unless the City, after having analyzed the significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures in an Environmental Impact Report, finds such mitigation measures are infeasible and adopts a statement of overriding considerations.

Potential modifications to a site-specific development project to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on historic resources include, but are not limited to:
a) Site plan modifications that incorporate the historic resource into the proposed project, and if necessary, rehabilitation of the historic resource. Rehabilitation of architecturally or historically significant buildings shall meet the U.S. Secretary of the interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
565 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-22 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b) Design changes related to height density, upper story step-backs, architectural features, or materials; and
c) Changes in the proposed development program to include compatible uses. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the approval of site plan and design • Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a qualified historian or architectural historian
MM 4.4-4(d) In the event that a future development project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area is proposed on a site containing a potential historic property, the City shall require, as part of the environmental review of the Project, an intensive level survey to determine whether the property is a historic resource under CEQA. If the intensive level survey determines that the potential historic property is a historic resource, the City shall undertake the analysis and impose mitigation measures required under mitigation measures MM 4.4-4(a) through (c).
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the approval of site plan and design • Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a qualified historian or architectural historian
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

PMM GEO-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 historical resources, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Consistent with the CBC and local regulatory agencies with oversight of development associated with the Plan, ensure that site-specific geotechnical investigations 566 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-23 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 conducted by a qualified geotechnical expert are conducted to ascertain soil types prior to preparation of project designs. These investigations can and should identify areas of potential failure and recommend remedial geotechnical measures to eliminate any problems.
b) Consistent with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for projects over one acre in size, obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the SWRCB and prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and submit the plan for review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At a minimum, the SWPPP should include a description of construction materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; site specific erosion and sedimentation control practices; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best management practices (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program.
c) Consistent with the requirements of the SWRCB and local regulatory agencies with oversight of development associated with the Plan, ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize the occurrence of slope instability and erosion. Design features should include measures to reduce erosion caused by storm water. Road cuts should be designed to maximize the potential for revegetation.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR:

MM 4.4-5 For future individual projects that require ground disturbance, the City shall evaluate the sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, at the applicant’s expense the City shall retain a qualified paleontologist (following Secretary of Interior standards) to evaluate the project and provide recommendations regarding additional work, potentially including testing or construction monitoring throughout the length of ground disturbance in paleontologically sensitive areas. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
567 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-24 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
Project Mitigation:

MM PALEO-1: A qualified paleontologist shall observe grading activities in excavations that may impact Holocene Alluvium or the Monterey Formation in order to salvage and catalogue fossils, as necessary. The Paleontologist shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance and would establish, in cooperation with the contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the contractor, that ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Periodic during earthwork
• Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by qualified paleontological monitor
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measures
City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR:

The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce GHG emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP:

Policy GHG-2: The City shall require any new development proposals within the SGCP to demonstrate consistency with an applicable adopted Climate Action Plan, or other applicable thresholds that demonstrate how the development would not conflict with the City of Glendale’s GHG reduction targets. Specific GHG reduction requirements for individual development applications shall be determined at the time of discretionary approval and in accordance with all applicable local (e.g., City, SCAMQD) and State GHG emissions targets.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
568 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-25 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; prior to issuance of occupancy permit
• Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit
Policy GHG-3: The City shall reduce GHG emissions from new development by discouraging autodependent sprawl and dependence on the private automobile; promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning; improving the jobs/housing ratio in each community; and other methods of reducing emissions;
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; prior to issuance of occupancy permit
• Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures
City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR:

MM 4.7-1(a) Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual projects, the project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (Municipal Code Title VII, Chapter 8 7823(d)), including the Small LUP General Permit, if applicable. This will include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating BMPs for construction-related control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. The SWPPP may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, the following applicable measures:
a) Minimum required pavement widths for residential streets needed to comply with all zoning and applicable ordinances
b) Use permeable materials for private sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, or interior roadway surfaces
c) Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by using pervious materials in spillover parking areas.
569 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-26 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 d) Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway or the stormwater conveyance system.
e) Biofilters including vegetated swales and strips
f) Extended/dry detention basins
g) Infiltration basin
h) Infiltration trenches or vaults
i) Catch basin inserts
j) Continuous flow deflection/separation systems
k) Storm drain inserts
l) Media filtration
m) Foundation planting
n) Catch basin screens
o) Normal flow storage/separation systems
p) Clarifiers
q) Filtration systems
r) Primary wastewater treatment systems
s) Dry Wells
t) Cistern
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.7-1(b): Individual project applicants shall prepare and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) per the requirements of Chapter 13.42, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan of the Glendale Municipal Code to ensure that stormwater runoff is managed for water quality concerns through implementation of appropriate and applicable BMPs. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works
570 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-27 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.7-3: Individual projects within the DSP area shall comply with the provision of the SUSMP to include drainage improvements, such as catch basins, surface parking drains, and other drainage improvements, as necessary. These improvements must be constructed as part of the proposed project in accordance with standard engineering practices and BMP. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works/Planning • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
Noise
Mitigation Measures
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

PMM NOISE-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 that physically divide a community, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Install temporary noise barriers during construction. b) Include permanent noise barriers and sound-attenuating features as part of the project design. Barriers could be in the form of outdoor barriers, sound walls, buildings, or earth berms to attenuate noise at adjacent sensitive uses. c) Schedule construction activities consistent with the allowable hours pursuant to applicable general plan noise element or noise ordinance d) Post procedures and phone numbers at the construction site for notifying the Lead Agency staff, local Police Department, and construction contractor (during regular construction hours and off-hours), along with permitted construction days and hours, complaint procedures, and who to notify in the event of a problem. 571 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-28 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 e) Notify neighbors and occupants within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of anticipated times when noise levels are expected to exceed limits established in the noise element of the general plan or noise ordinance.
f) Designate an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project.
g) Ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained per manufacturers’ specifications and fitted with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds silencers, wraps). All intake and exhaust ports on power equipment shall be muffled or shielded. h) Use hydraulically or electrically powered tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) for project construction to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust should be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves should be used, if such jackets are commercially available, and this could achieve a further reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures should be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures. i) Where feasible, design projects so that they are depressed below the grade of the existing noise-sensitive receptor, creating an effective barrier between the roadway and sensitive receptors.
j) Where feasible, improve the acoustical insulation of dwelling units where setbacks and sound barriers do not provide sufficient noise reduction. k) Using rubberized asphalt or “quiet pavement” to reduce road noise for new roadway segments, roadways in which widening or other modifications require re-pavement, or normal reconstruction of roadways where re-pavement is planned l) Projects that require pile driving or other construction noise above 90 dBA in proximity to sensitive receptors, should reduce potential pier drilling, pile driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction impacts greater than 90 dBA; a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures should be completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant.
m) Use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future development is compatible with adjacent transportation facilities and land uses;
572 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-29 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 n) Monitor the effectiveness of noise reduction measures by taking noise measurements and installing adaptive mitigation measures to achieve the standards for ambient noise levels established by the noise element of the general plan or noise ordinance.
o) Use equipment and trucks with the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible) for project construction.
p) Stationary noise sources can and should be located as far from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible and they should be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the Lead Agency (or other appropriate government agency) to provide equivalent noise reduction.
q) Use of portable barriers in the vicinity of sensitive receptors during construction. r) Implement noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings (for instance by the use of sound blankets) and implement if such measures are feasible and would noticeably reduce noise impacts.
s) Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
t) Maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and other new noise generating facilities.
u) Construct sound reducing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses.
v) Stationary noise sources can and should be located as far from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible and they should be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the Lead Agency (or other appropriate government agency) to provide equivalent noise reduction.
w) Use techniques such as grade separation, buffer zones, landscaped berms, dense plantings, sound walls, reduced-noise paving materials, and traffic calming measures.
x) Locate transit-related passenger stations, central maintenance facilities, decentralized maintenance facilities, and electric substations away from sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible.
y) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
573 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-30 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Periodic field inspections
• Action Indicating Compliance: Field inspection sign-off City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR:

MM 4.11-1: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Glendale General Plan, Noise Ordinance, or other applicable standards shall be required to implement measures, such as but not limited to; increase setbacks of dwelling units from area roadways or rail lines, use of developer-installed noise walls to protect exterior use area, and/or use of upgraded acoustical doors and windows in dwelling units to reduce interior noise. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Operation
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; periodic field inspections; prior to occupancy permit
• Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit MM 4.11-2: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Glendale General Plan Noise Ordinance, or other applicable standards, shall implement measures, such as but not limited to, the use of parking areas or garage structures to act as acoustical buffers or barriers against highway or rail noise shall be implemented.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Operation
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; periodic field inspections; prior to occupancy permit
• Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit MM 4.11-5: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels shall be required to implement measures, such as but not limited to, the installation of temporary noise wall or curtains, use of quieter equipment and/or construction procedures, and restrictions on nighttime construction. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
574 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-31 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting • Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans, Field inspection sign-off City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR:

MM 4.9-1(a) All construction activity within the City shall be conducted in accordance with Section

8.36.080 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: During construction; prior to issuance of grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.9-1(b) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels:
a) Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to surrounding land uses within 1,000 feet of a project site disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period b) Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and be in good working condition
c) Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible
d) Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to minimize disruption on sensitive uses
e) Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources
f) Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible
g) Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes
h) Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, 575 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-32 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party.
i) Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: During construction; prior to issuance of grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.9-1(c) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the DSP area would be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.9-1(d) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks used during construction would be routed away from residential streets to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning/Public Works • Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.9-3(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall establish a 50-foot buffer zone around identified historic structures and shall provide for temporary fencing and private security patrols to prevent human and vehicular/equipment access to the structures during construction of the proposed project.
576 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-33 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning • Monitoring Phase: Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: During construction; prior to issuance of grading permit • Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
Project Mitigation:

MM NOI-1: Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits, and to the satisfaction of the City of Glendale, the applicant shall retain a Professional Structural Engineer with experience in structural vibration analysis and monitoring for historic buildings and a Project Historical Architect as a team to ensure project construction-induced vibration levels do not expose the existing Chase Building to vibration levels of 0.12 ppv in/sec or greater. The Structural Engineer/Project Historical Architect team shall perform the following tasks:
• Survey the Project Site and the existing Chase Building and prepare a report that includes but not limited to the following:
o Description of existing conditions at the existing Chase Building; o Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would be below

0.12 ppv in/sec, the potential for damage to the existing Chase Building; o Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded; and
o A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post-construction and post-demolition surveys of the existing Chase Building. The plan should include, but not limited to, monitoring instrument specifications, instrument calibration certificates, list of exact monitoring locations, data collection protocol, alarming and alerting protocol, reporting protocol, and maintenance and service outage protocol. Any of the measures can be removed when no longer necessary to achieve the 0.12 ppv in/sec threshold of structure damage at the existing Chase Building. • Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include, but are not limited to:
o Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment;
577 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-34 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 o Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment; o Specifying demolition by non-impact methods, such as sawing concrete; o Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources; and o Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision making for subsequent activities. Monitoring shall be conducted, at minimum, during all ground-disturbing significant impact construction activities (i.e., demolition, shoring, excavation, and foundation work). Warning thresholds, as specified in the monitoring plan, shall be below the specified vibration limits to allow the Contractor to take the necessary steps to reduce vibration, including but not limited to halting/staggering concurrent activities, utilizing quieter or lowervibratory techniques, or reducing the speed or intensity of equipment. A monitoring record that documents all alarms and includes information regarding compliance with these vibration measures shall be provided to the City upon request.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction • Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan and permit check; periodic field inspections
• Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits; Post-construction and Post-demolition surveys
MM NOI-2: To the satisfaction of the City, in the unanticipated event of discovery of vibrationcaused damage, the Structural Engineer and the Project Historical Architect shall document any damage to the existing Chase Building caused by construction of the project and shall recommend necessary repairs. Until the conclusion of vibration causing activities, a report from the Structural Engineer or Project Historical Architect shall be submitted monthly to the City of Glendale documenting the presence or absence of damage, and, if needed, the status of any required repairs. The project applicant shall be responsible for any repairs associated with vibration‐caused damage as a result of construction of the project. Any such repairs shall be undertaken and completed as required to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations 68) and shall apply the California Historical Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8) and other applicable codes.
• Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
578 of 2287

6.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 6.0-35 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
• Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
• Monitoring Frequency: Once during plan and permit check; Continuous field inspections during construction, with monthly reporting • Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits
579 of 2287
1 Leanna Williams
From: Stephen G. Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:23 PM
To: Leanna Williams
Subject: RE: 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Transit Technical Report HQTCs Leanna,
Based on SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS HQTC maps, the project site is within a half‐mile of a HQTC in the 2045 scenario, where there is HQTC service running north and south on Central Avenue at that point.  This will be the planned L.A.

Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit project that recently cleared the environmental review process and is expected to open in 2024.

SCAG updates its HQTC data and maps every four years for the RTP/SCS.  We do our own analysis, and then have the local transit agency concur.  We caveat that the developer and/or lead agency should look at the current point in time as well.  Transit agencies frequently adjust service, especially with the pandemic.  I looked at Glendale’s Beeline Route 1 and according to the current schedule, it also is operating as a HQTC service north and south on Central at that point.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Steve
580 of 2287

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MARCH 2017
FINAL 2016

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
581 of 2287

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD
Chairman: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
Vice Chairman: BEN BENOIT
Mayor Pro Tem, Wildomar
Cities of Riverside County
MEMBERS:

MARION ASHLEY
Supervisor, Fifth District
County of Riverside

JOE BUSCAINO
Councilmember, 15th District
City of Los Angeles Representative
MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI
Mayor, South Pasadena
Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region
JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph. D.

Governor’s Appointee

SHEILA KUEHL
Supervisor, Third District
County of Los Angeles

LARRY MCCALLON
Mayor Pro Tem, Highland
Cities of San Bernardino County

JUDITH MITCHELL
Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates
Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region

SHAWN NELSON
Supervisor, Fourth District
County of Orange
DR. CLARK E. PARKER, SR.

Senate Rules Committee Appointee

DWIGHT ROBINSON
Councilmember, Lake Forest
Cities of Orange County

JANICE RUTHERFORD
Supervisor, Second District
County of San Bernardino
EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

WAYNE NASTRI
582 of 2287
Dedicated in remembrance of
John J. Benoit
Supervisor, Fourth District, Riverside County
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Governing Board Member 2010–2016
The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is dedicated to the late SCAQMD Governing Board Member John J. Benoit, who actively participated in the development of the 2016 AQMP as well as the extensive public dialog on its contents.
“The basic theme of this year’s AQMP is to reach specific air quality goals in an integrated way, through collaboration and innovation, while continuing to support our region’s growth and livability. What this means is, as a resident of the South Coast Air Basin, you’re part of the team that will oversee how this plan is finalized and carried out.” – From Supervisor Benoit’s opening remarks
at a July 14, 2016 Public Workshop in Palm Desert
on the Draft 2016 AQMP
Supervisor Benoit was a champion for clean air and a positive force on the Governing Board throughout his term of service. He was highly respected by his colleagues and will be greatly missed. His legacy will live on, as a role model for strong leadership toward balanced clean air progress.
583 of 2287

CONTRIBUTORS
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)
Wayne Nastri
Executive Officer
Jill Whynot
Chief Operating Officer
Philip M. Fine, Ph.D.

Deputy Executive Officer
Planning, Rule Development & Area
Sources
Henry Hogo Susan Nakamura
Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Acting Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Science and Technology Advancement Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Jo Kay Ghosh, Ph.D.

Health Effects Officer
Planning, Rule Development & Area
Sources
Tracy Goss, P.E. Michael Krause
Planning and Rules Manager Planning and Rules Manager
Planning, Rule Development & Area
Sources
Planning, Rule Development & Area
Sources
584 of 2287
Authors
Wayne Barcikowski, M.A. – Air Quality Specialist Eugene Kang – Program Supervisor Kalam Cheung, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Michael Laybourn – Air Quality Specialist Shoreh Cohanim – Air Quality Specialist Jong Hoon Lee, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Kevin Durkee – Senior Meteorologist Sang-Mi Lee, Ph.D. – Program Supervisor Ed Eckerle – Program Supervisor Kevin Orellana – Air Quality Specialist Scott Epstein, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Payam Pakbin, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Salvatore Farina – Temporary Air Quality Specialist Marc Carreras Sospedra, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Heather Farr – Program Supervisor Diana Thai – Air Quality Specialist Kelly Trainor Gamino – Air Quality Specialist Xinqui Zhang, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Ali Ghasemi, P.E. – Program Supervisor
Aaron Katzenstein, Ph.D. – Lab Services & Source Testing Manager Contributors
Jason Aspell – Senior Air Quality Engineer Lisa Tanaka O’Malley – Community Relations Mark Bassett, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist David Ono – Program Supervisor Richard Carlson – Air Quality Specialist Olga Pikelnaya, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Krista Kline – Temporary Air Quality Specialist Andrea Polidori, Ph.D. – Atmospheric Measurements Manager Rongsheng Luo – SCAG Program Manager Dean Saito – Fleet Implementation Manager Michael Morris – Program Supervisor Patti Whiting – Staff Specialist Roxanne Ngo – Student Intern Jillian Wong, Ph.D. – Planning & Rules Manager Anthony Oliver, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist Susan Yan – Air Quality Specialist Reviewers
Barbara Baird, J.D. – Chief Deputy Counsel William Wong, J.D. – Principal Deputy District Counsel Megan Lorenz, J.D. – Senior Deputy District Counsel
Production
Leah Alfaro – Senior Office Assistant Arlene Martinez – Senior Administrative Secretary Celia Diamond – Secretary Jacob Steins – Summer Intern
Angela Kim – Administrative Secretary SCAQMD Graphics Department Cristina Lopez – Senior Administrative Secretary SCAQMD Print Shop 585 of 2287
586 of 2287
587 of 2287
588 of 2287
589 of 2287
590 of 2287
591 of 2287
592 of 2287
593 of 2287
594 of 2287
595 of 2287
596 of 2287
597 of 2287
598 of 2287
599 of 2287
600 of 2287
601 of 2287
602 of 2287
603 of 2287
604 of 2287
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Overview _______________________________________________________________ ES-1 Air Quality Standards _____________________________________________________ ES-1 Challenges _____________________________________________________________ ES-2 Plan Objectives __________________________________________________________ ES-4 Control Strategies ________________________________________________________ ES-6 Regulatory Measures _____________________________________________________ ES-8 Incentive Funding ________________________________________________________ ES-9 Attainment Demonstration _______________________________________________ ES-10 Clean Air Act Requirements _______________________________________________ ES-11 Collarboration and Outreach ______________________________________________ ES-12

1. Introduction
Purpose _________________________________________________________________ 1-1 Historical Perspective ______________________________________________________ 1-2 Regional Setting __________________________________________________________ 1-4 U.S. EPA Standards ________________________________________________________ 1-6 Air Quality Progress _______________________________________________________ 1-9 Progress in Implementing the 2007/2012 AQMP _______________________________ 1-11 2016 AQMP ____________________________________________________________ 1-15 Format of This Document __________________________________________________ 1-22

2. Air Quality and Health Effects
Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards _______________________________________________ 2-2 Current Air Quality _______________________________________________________ 2-14 Air Quality Compared to Other U.S. Metropolitan Areas _________________________ 2-54 Summary_______________________________________________________________ 2-59

3. Base Year and Future Emissions
Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 3-1 Emission Inventories ______________________________________________________ 3-1 Base Year Emissions ______________________________________________________ 3-10 Future Emissions ________________________________________________________ 3-17 Impact of Growth ________________________________________________________ 3-27 605 of 2287
ii
Top Source Categories ____________________________________________________ 3-29

4. Control Strategy and Implementation
Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 4-1 Overall Strategy __________________________________________________________ 4-2 SCAQMD Proposed 8-Hour Ozone Strategy _____________________________________ 4-6 State and Federal Control Measures _________________________________________ 4-34 SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and Transportation Control Measures ___________________________________________ 4-41 SCAQMD Proposed PM2.5 Strategy __________________________________________ 4-44 SCAQMD Proposed Contingency Measures ____________________________________ 4-51 SIP Emission Reduction Commitment ________________________________________ 4-52 Overall Emission Reductions _______________________________________________ 4-60 Implementation _________________________________________________________ 4-63

5. Future Air Quality
Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 5-1 Background ______________________________________________________________ 5-1 Ozone Modeling Approach __________________________________________________ 5-3 Future Ozone Air Quality ___________________________________________________ 5-8 PM2.5 Modeling Approach_________________________________________________ 5-17 Future PM2.5 Air Quality __________________________________________________ 5-20 Additional Modeling Analyses ______________________________________________ 5-27 Summary and Conclusions _________________________________________________ 5-28

6. Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements
Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 6-1 Federal Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulates _______________________________ 6-2 Federal Air Quality Standards for Ozone _______________________________________ 6-5 Federal Clean Air Act Requirements for Nonattainment Areas ______________________ 6-8 California Clean Air Act Requirements ________________________________________ 6-19 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________ 6-26

7. Current and Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas SIP Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 7-1 Air Quality Setting ________________________________________________________ 7-3 Future Air Quality _______________________________________________________ 7-25 Conclusions _____________________________________________________________ 7-40 606 of 2287
iii

8. Looking Beyond Current Requirements
Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 8-1 Criteria Pollutant NAAQS Review _____________________________________________ 8-1 Changes in the Federal Ozone Standard _______________________________________ 8-3 Implications of a New Ozone Standard for the Basin ______________________________ 8-5 Review of Federal PM Standards _____________________________________________ 8-6 World Health Organization Air Quality Standards ________________________________ 8-8

9. Air Toxics Control Strategy
Background ______________________________________________________________ 9-1 Recent Air Toxics Findings __________________________________________________ 9-8 Relationship of Air Toxics Control Strategy to the 2016 AQMP ______________________ 9-8 Air Toxics Control Strategy _________________________________________________ 9-10 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________ 9-23

10. Climate and Energy
Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 10-1 South Coast Basin Energy Consumption, Emissions, and Projections ________________ 10-7 Challenges and Opportunities in Moving Towards 100 Percent Renewable Power ____ 10-14 Southern California’s Energy and Air Quality Future ____________________________ 10-28 References ____________________________________________________________ 10-33

11. Public Process and Participation
Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 11-1 Outreach Program _______________________________________________________ 11-2 Outreach Activities _______________________________________________________ 11-6 Glossary
Appendix I – Health Effects
Appendix II – Current Air Quality
Appendix III – Base and Future Year Emission Inventory
607 of 2287
iv
Appendix IV-A – SCAQMD’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures
Appendix IV-B – CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy
Appendix IV-C – SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures
Appendix V – Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations
Appendix VI – Compliance with Other Clean Air Act Requirements 608 of 2287
Preface
Southern California’s historic battles with poor air quality are well documented. Since the mid-20th century, the greater Los Angeles region has been at the forefront of air pollution science, low-emissions technology development, and innovative air quality regulation. As long-time residents of the South Coast Air Basin can attest, these efforts have led to substantial and noticeable improvements in air quality and public health, all during a period of dramatic increases in economic activity, population, and vehicle miles traveled. Technological advances in pollution controls, pollution prevention, clean fuels, alternative energy, and combustion processes have been and will be the key to past and future progress. Less than two decades ago, newly established PM2.5 standards seemed unattainable. However, through strong emission reduction efforts at the local, state and federal levels, the Basin has met the original standards and is on track to meet the revised, more stringent standards by their statutory deadlines.

Despite these successes, the health of our residents continues to be seriously affected by the poor air quality that confronts the region. Our unique topography and meteorology, along with emissions from millions of vehicles and a thriving goods movement industry, continue to produce the worst ozone pollution in the nation. New scientific information on the health impacts of air pollution has led to progressively more stringent air quality standardsto better protect public health. Limited local authority to control certain sectors of mobile sourcesthat account for the majority of emissions poses policy challenges. Future climate variation and the effect of drought conditions add further uncertainties. Finally, as the most cost-effective emissions controls are implemented, it becomes harder to identify and implement new cost-effective control measures while minimizing impacts to the local economy and businesses.

Existing rules, regulations and programs are not sufficient to fulfill the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s public health mandate. In the next seven to fifteen years, the region must achieve substantial additional reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions in order to attain the ozone standards by the approaching deadlines.

Previous Air Quality Management Plans have relied heavily on unspecified future technological developments to get us there. But given the short time horizons and the emission reduction needs, there is now a need to develop specific pathways to attainment in order to clarify and accelerate the required actions to achieve our air quality goals. These actions necessarily include aggressive new regulatory approaches, and a significant expansion of incentives programs. More stringent mobile source emission standards are desperately needed to spur further development and production of zero- and near-zero emission technologies. But even with more stringent standards, natural turnover of existing vehicles and equipment will not be fast enough to achieve the requisite technology penetration. Therefore, regulations and incentives to accelerate fleet turnover in the Basin are a major element of this Plan. While previous incentive programs have been very successful in achieving real emission reductions, the incentive funding levels needed for attainment are significantly more than what has been allocated to date. Securing the necessary funding will not be easy, and will require coordinated advocacy and outreach, integrated planning, coalition building, key partnerships, and political will.

Fortunately, there is reason to be optimistic. For the first time, the specific technologies needed to achieve the ozone standards are well-defined. Many are or will be commercially available within the next few years. New technology costs have dropped and will continue to do so with refinements and higher-volume production. We can now envision future technology deployment scenarios that are consistent with attainment.

When the public, health advocates, business stakeholders, and policy makers come together and express that the national poster-child of poor air quality can actually achieve what was once thought impossible, when we articulate the benefits to public health, the local economy, and the attractiveness of the region, and when we demonstrate how disparate interests can unite in a common cause to solve environmental problems, the investments in our future should follow. This 2016 Air Quality Management Plan provides the basis to continue and strengthen the region’s campaign for clean air and a healthful future for our residents. 609 of 2287
Executive Summary
The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan is the regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin, an area that includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Through a combination of regulatory and incentive approaches via partnerships at all levels of government, the elusive goal of healthy air is within reach. 610 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Overview ES-1
Purpose of the 2016 AQMP
 Air Quality Standards ES-1
Standards addressed in the 2016 AQMP
 Challenges ES-2
Key hurdles to meeting the standards
 Plan Objectives ES-4
Goals guiding the 2016 AQMP development
 Control Strategies ES-6
Control approaches and measures
611 of 2287
 Regulatory Measures ES-8
Existing and proposed regulatory actions
 Incentive Funding ES-9
Expanding and funding incentive programs
 Attainment Demonstration ES-10
Future air quality projections
 Clean Air Act Requirements ES-11
Satisfying the required elements of an AQMP
 Collaboration and Outreach ES-12
Integration and coordination with other agencies
612 of 2287
Executive Summary
Overview
The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP or Plan) is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and healthful air. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) is responsible for clean air in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), an area that includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. While air quality has dramatically improved over the years, the Basin still exceeds federal public health standards for both ozone and particulate matter (PM) and experiences some of the worst air pollution in the nation. The 2016 AQMP represents a thorough analysis of existing and potential regulatory control options, includes available, proven, and cost-effective strategies, and seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The Plan recognizes the critical importance of working with other agencies to develop funding and incentives that encourage the accelerated transition to cleaner vehicles, and the modernization of buildings and industrial facilities to cleaner technologies in a manner that benefits not only air quality, but also local businesses and the regional economy. These “win-win” scenarios are key to implementation of this Plan with broad support from a wide range of stakeholders.

Air Quality Standards
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas not attaining the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to develop and implement an emission reduction strategy that will bring the area into attainment in a timely manner. The region is given a classification that describes the degree of nonattainment.

This classification dictates specific planning requirements under the CAA, including the time provided to attain the standard. The CAA requires attainment of the standard to be achieved as “expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than the attainment years listed in Table ES-1 below. It should be noted that the years listed in Table ES-1 are the latest calendar year to achieve the requisite emission reductions, and not the statutory attainment date. For example, the attainment date for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in an extreme non-attainment attainment area is July 20, 2032. But attainment must be demonstrated with projected emissions reductions in the prior year (2031).

Five NAAQS are being evaluated in this integrated Plan. Three standards – the 8-hour ozone NAAQS established in 2008 (2008 8-hour Ozone), the annual PM2.5 NAAQS established in 2012 (2012 annual PM2.5), and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS established in 2006 (2006 24-hour PM2.5) are required to have new attainment demonstration in this Plan. However, given the overlaps in emissions and control strategies for other yet-to-be-attained NAAQS, this integrated Plan will also include revisions to the attainment demonstrations for two other standards: the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. While the 2012 AQMP focused on attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, it has since been determined, primarily due to unexpected drought conditions, that it was impracticable to meet the standard by the original attainment year. Since that time, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has approved a re-classification to “serious” nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which requires a new attainment demonstration with a new attainment deadline.

ES-1
613 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE ES-1
Standard Concentration Classification Latest Attainment Year
2008 8-hour Ozone 75 ppb Extreme 2031
2012 Annual PM2.5 12 µg/m3 Moderate
Serious
2021
2025
2006 24-hour PM2.5 35 µg/m3 Serious 2019
1997 8-hour Ozone 80 ppb Extreme 2023
1979 1-hour Ozone 120 ppb Extreme 2022
Challenges
The 2016 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if the NAAQS are not met on time. As with every AQMP, a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures is updated with the latest data and methods. The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines. Based on the inventory and modeling results, 522 tons per day (tpd) of total Basin NOx 2012 emissions are projected to drop to 255 tpd and 214 tpd in the 8-hour ozone attainment years of 2023 and 2031 respectively, due to continued implementation of already adopted regulatory actions (“baseline emissions”). The analysis suggests that total Basin emissions of NOx must be reduced to approximately 141 tpd in 2023 and 96 tpd in 2031 to attain the 8-hour ozone standards. This represents an additional 45 percent reduction in NOx in 2023, and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels. The following chart presents the future projections of NOx emissions, the reductions from the proposed control strategy and the levels necessary to attain the standards. The chart also illustrates how the strategy to meet the 8-hour ozone standard in 2023 should lead to sufficient NOx emission reductions to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2022. Since NOx emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOx reductions needed to meet the ozone standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards. 1-2ES-2
614 of 2287
Executive Summary
FIGURE ES-1. BASIN TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS (2012–2031)
ES-3
615 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
To ensure air quality goals will be met while maximizing benefits and minimizing adverse impacts to the regional economy, the following policy objectives have guided the development of the 2016 AQMP:

Eliminate reliance on future technologies (CAA §182(e)(5)) measures to the maximum extent feasible.

As an “extreme” nonattainment area for ozone, the CAA allows the Basin to rely on unspecified future technological advancements to show future attainment of air quality standards. Given the fast approaching deadlines – as early as 2022 and 2023, and given that the majority of the zero and nearzero technologies needed for attainment have already or will soon be commercially available, it is now possible to specify the technologies and the implementation pathways to attainment. Some CAA §182(e)(5) flexibility may still be needed for Plan approval by U.S. EPA given the need for continued technological and cost improvements and new funding and incentive programs.

Calculate and take credit for co-benefits from other planning efforts. Other local, state and federal efforts addressing GHG reductions, energy efficiency, transportation, and goods movement have and will continue to lead to air quality improvements. Where possible, this Plan seeks to quantify and include emission reductions from these parallel and complementary programs.

Plan Objectives
Eliminate reliance
on future
technologies (CAA
§182(e)(5))
measures to the
maximum extent
possible by
providing specific
control measures
which have
quantifiable
emission
reductions and
associated costs.

Calculate and
take credit for
co-benefits from
other planning
efforts (e.g., GHG
reduction
targets, energy
efficiency, and
transportation).

Develop a
strategy with
fair-share
emission
reductions at the
federal, state,
and local levels.
2016
AQMP
Policy
Objectives
1-4ES-4
616 of 2287
Executive Summary
Invest in strategies
and technologies
meeting multiple
objectives regarding
air quality, climate
change, air toxics
exposure, energy,
and transportation.

Prioritize strategies
that meet fast
approaching
deadlines and assist
EJ impacted areas.

Seek and identify
significant secured
funding for
incentives to
implement early
deployment and
commercialization of
known zero and
near-zero
technologies,
particularly in the
mobile source sector.

Enhance the
socioeconomic
analysis and select
the most efficient
and cost-effective
path to achieve
multi-pollutant and
multi-deadline
targets.

Prioritize nonregulatory,
innovative and “winwin” approaches for
emission reductions.

As shown in the past,
air quality standards
can be achieved
while maintaining a
healthy economy.

Develop a strategy with fair-share emission reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. SCAQMD will make full use of its legal authorities to seek a cleaner air future. But with limitation on SCAQMD authority over the mobile sources that contribute the most to our air quality problems, attainment cannot be achieved without State and federal actions. Proposed measures include a new ultra-low NOx federal engine emission standard for heavy duty trucks and other State mobile source regulations. In some cases, additional authority provided to the State or SCAQMD for sources traditionally under the jurisdiction of the federal government (e.g., locomotives, aircraft, and ships) should be considered.

Invest in strategies and technologies meeting multiple objectives regarding air quality, climate change, air toxics exposure, energy, and transportation. With multiple environmental and societal objectives, targets, deadlines, and strategies underway, it is critical that planning efforts are integrated at all levels and across all agencies. To this end, when progress towards multiple goals is possible, those strategies should be designed to maximize the co-benefits and then prioritized for implementation and investment.

The Plan embraces strategies that reduce toxic risk impacting local neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities adjacent to goods movement and transportation corridors.

Identify and secure significant funding for incentives to implement early deployment and commercialization of zero and near-zero technologies. The 2016 AQMP control strategy strongly relies on a transition to zero and near-zero emission technologies in the mobile source sector, including automobiles, transit buses, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and off-road applications. The plan focuses on existing commercialized technologies and energy sources including their supporting infrastructure, along with newer technologies that are nearing commercialization based on recent demonstration programs and limited test markets. Prioritizing and expanding funding in Environmental Justice (EJ) areas will be sought.

ES-5
617 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Enhance the socioeconomic analysis and pursue the most efficient and cost-effective path to achieve multi-pollutant and multi-deadline targets. Integrated planning across multiple pollutants and multiple deadlines allows for efficient and cost-effective control strategy design. An enhanced socioeconomic impact analysis also quantifies the impacts of the strategy on health, jobs, businesses and the local economy.

Prioritize enforceable regulatory measures as well as non-regulatory, innovative and “win-win” approaches for emission reductions. As shown in the past, significant air quality improvements can be achieved while maintaining a healthy economy. The 2016 AQMP calls for a priority on maximizing emission reductions utilizing zero-emission technologies wherever feasible and cost-effective, near-zero emission technologies in other applications, and innovative “win-win” approaches for emission reductions when new regulations are not yet practical. A full life-cycle in-Basin emissions analysis will be considered in determining the full emissions profile and cost-effectiveness of these technologies. In designing the control strategy needed to achieve the ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards, there will be special consideration of strategies that can contribute to the economic vitality of the region and the needs of both the public and local small businesses. The Plan will prioritize distribution of incentive funding to maximize emissions reductions in the most disadvantaged communities in the region.

Control Strategies
The overall control strategy is an integral approach relying on fair-share emission reductions from federal, state and local levels. The 2016 AQMP is composed of stationary and mobile source emission reductions from traditional regulatory control measures, incentive-based programs, co-benefits from climate programs, mobile source strategies and reductions from federal sources, which include aircraft, locomotives and ocean-going vessels. These strategies are to be implemented in partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. EPA. In addition, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recently approved their 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS) 1 that include transportation programs, measures, and strategies generally designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are contained within baseline emissions inventory in the Plan.
1 http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
1-6ES-6

618 of 2287
Executive Summary
Mobile sources contributed about 88 percent of the region’s total NOx emissions in 2012. Since the SCAQMD has limited authority to regulate mobile sources, staff worked closely with CARB and U.S. EPA, which have primary authority over mobile sources, to ensure mobile sources perform their fair share of pollution reduction responsibilities. In May 2016, CARB released an updated Mobile Source Strategy2 and a Proposed State SIP Strategy3 supporting multiple planning efforts to meet air quality standards, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, petroleum consumption reduction, and reduced health risks from transportation emissions over the next 15 years. The integrated approach allows consideration of the multi-pollutant co-benefits, and identification of interaction between control measures to guide policy and maximize program effectiveness. Specifically, the mobile source strategy outlines a coordinated suite of measure concepts for on-road light- and heavy-duty vehicles, off-road equipment, as well as federal and international sources. The strategy also provides regulatory and programmatic mechanisms to implement the measures and estimated NOx reductions for the South Coast Air Basin. A subset of the statewide strategy is a mobile source strategy for the South Coast SIP. The reductions from these mobile source measures are included in the attainment demonstration and are critical for meeting the standards. Without significant reductions from the mobile source sector demonstration of attainment is not possible.

In June 2016, SCAQMD and 10 co-petitioners requested the U.S. EPA Administrator to undertake rulemaking to revise the national on-road heavy-duty engine exhaust NOx emission standard from 0.2 g/bhp-hr to 0.02 g/bhp-hr. It was recommended that the regulation be implemented by January 2022 or if not feasible, by January 2024, with a phase-in starting in January 1, 2022. A national standard is estimated to result in NOx emission reductions from this source category from 70 to 90 percent in 14 to 25 years, respectively. Given that the Basin must attain the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS by 2031 (within the 2 http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.htm. 3 http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016sip.htm.

Traditional regulatory measures
Incentive-based programs
Co-benefits from existing GHG reduction programs
Further Deployment of Cleaner Technologies
Reductions from State and federal mobile sources
ES-7

619 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
next 15 years), a new on-road heavy-duty engine exhaust emissions standard for NOx is critical given the time needed for such standards to be adopted, for manufacturers to develop and produce compliant vehicles, and for national fleet turnover to occur. The following chart shows the difference in NOx reductions from heavy duty trucks between baseline (no action) emissions (in blue), a low NOx standard adopted only in California (yellow) and reductions if the same low NOx standard is implemented nationally (orange).

FIGURE ES-2. YEARS FROM PERFORMANCE LEVEL INTRODUCTION
Some of the control measures achieve emission reductions by continuing existing regulatory requirements and programs and extensions of those programs, while some control measures are not regulatory in form, but instead focus on incentives, outreach, and education to bring about emission reductions through voluntary participation and behavioral changes needed to complement regulations.

Regulatory Measures
In order to meet ozone standards, both NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions need to be addressed. However, air quality modeling demonstrates that NOx reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations.

NOx-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include RECLAIM facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP proposes robust NOx reductions 1-8ES-8
620 of 2287
Executive Summary
from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOx emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters and backup power equipment. Such replacements can be achieved through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

It should be emphasized that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of previously adopted regulations will lead to NOx emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023 and 80 percent by 2031.

Examples of stationary source reductions include 12 tpd from RECLAIM facilities, 4.1 tpd from Rule 1147 sources, 3.2 tpd from Rule 1110, 1146, and 1146.1 sources and 3 tpd from the implementation of Rule 1111. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures, a 30 percent reduction of NOx from stationary sources is expected in the 15 year period between 2008 and 2023. This is in addition to significant NOx reductions from stationary sources achieved in the decades prior to 2008. This Plan builds upon these past successes with new regulatory commitments for additional emissions reductions to the same extent as past AQMPs.

Incentive Funding
Given the significant NOx emission reductions needed to attain the federal ozone air quality standards by 2023 and 2031, a combination of regulatory actions and public funding incentives are needed. With fast approaching ozone standard attainment deadlines, faster reductions are critical to complying with federal requirements and improving public health in the short term. The purpose of incentive programs is to advance deployment of new cleaner technologies at a pace that is not feasible through regulation alone.

The approach that the SCAQMD and CARB are proposing to achieve the incentive-based emission reductions identified in the State Mobile Source Strategy (Appendix IV-B) and the SCAQMD’s mobile and stationary source measures (Appendix IV-A) is predicated on securing the amount of funding needed to achieve the NOx emission reductions by 2023 and 2031.

The amount of incentive funding needed is estimated to be approximately $11–14 billion in total funding over a seven to fifteen year period. Given this significant funding level needed to attain the federal ozone air quality standards, an action plan is being developed as part of the 2016 AQMP public adoption process to identify the necessary actions by the District, the region, the state, the federal government, and other partnerships to ensure the requisite levels of funding are secured as early as possible and sustained through 2031.

Currently, the SCAQMD receives around $56 million per year in incentives funding to accelerate turnover of on- and off-road vehicles and equipment under SB 1107, a portion of the state’s Tire Fee, and AB923. AB 923 will sunset in 2024. In addition, the District has received close to $550 million in Proposition 1B funding. The last round of Proposition 1B will be ending in the next couple of years. The District has also received funding under the DERA program on a competitive basis. However, the amount of funding needed to achieve the NOx emission reductions associated with the “Further Deployment” ES-9
621 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
measures proposed in the State Mobile Source Strategy and the 2016 AQMP will require on the order of $1 billion per year if funding is available beginning in 2017.

Attainment Demonstration
The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how and when the South Coast Air Basin, as well as the Coachella Valley, will attain the ozone and PM2.5 standards as “expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than the latest statutory attainment date. For the three ozone standards, the control strategy will reduce baseline emissions below the amount of allowable emissions in the region that would still meet the standards also referred to as the region’s “carrying capacity.” The following table provides the projected NOx baseline emissions and reductions in tons per day for the three ozone attainment years from implementing the different measures, programs and strategies in the overall control strategy. Traditional regulatory measures are a mix of SCAQMD and CARB control measures. Incentive measures include SCAQMD stationary and mobile source as well as CARB mobile source programs. Further deployment of cleaner technologies focus on additional incentives for the cleanest on-road vehicles and off-road equipment.

Federal sources are comprised of aircraft, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels.

TABLE ES-2
Proposed NOx Reductions to Achieve Ozone Carrying Capacities NOx Emissions (tpd) 2022 – 1-hour Ozone
(120 ppb)
2023 – 8-hour Ozone
(80 ppb)
2031 – 8-hour Ozone
(75 ppb)
Baseline Inventory 287 255 214
Carrying Capacity 245 141 96
Traditional Regulatory
Measures 2.6 3.2 18.2
Incentive-based
Programs 18.2 23.9 25.7
CARB’s Further
Deployment of Cleaner
Technologies (OnRoad, Off-Road)
0 62 34
Federal Reductions in
State Strategy 9 46 64
TOTAL Reductions 30 135 142
Remaining NOx
Emissions† 257 120 72
Set Aside Account 3 3 1
TOTAL Remaining NOx
Emissions 260* 123 73
† Baseline Inventory minus Total Reductions
* Concurrent VOC reduction will assist in meeting the carrying capacity 1-10ES-10
622 of 2287
Executive Summary
The 2016 AQMP also demonstrates that the 24-hour PM2.5 standard will be met by the 2019 attainment year with no additional reductions needed beyond already adopted measures. Therefore, no additional measures are necessary for this standard. The annual PM2.5 standard, however, cannot be met by 2021 by implementing all feasible measures, which is the attainment year for our current “moderate” nonattainment area classification. As a “serious” nonattainment area, four more years are provided to attain the annual PM2.5 standard by 2025.

Since NOx emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOx reductions needed to meet the ozone standards will lead to significant improvements in PM2.5 levels. The modeling results show that the ozone strategy will greatly assist in reducing PM2.5 concentrations, reaching attainment for the annual PM2.5 standard in 2023 when the benefits from the ozone strategy are fully realized. However, it is impracticable to demonstrate attainment by 2021, the “moderate” PM2.5 nonattainment area deadline.

Thus, the SCAQMD is seeking to reclassify the South Coast Air Basin as a “serious” nonattainment area that will meet annual standard as “expeditiously as practicable,” but no later than the attainment year of 2025. The impracticability demonstration can be found in Appendix VI-B.

Clean Air Act Requirements
This Plan complies with applicable federal CAA includes a series of requirements to be included in State Implementation Plans for nonattainment areas. The following required elements have been included and/or analyzed in the 2016 AQMP and corresponding appendices. • Emission Inventory
• Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
• Best Available Control Measures (BACM)
• Control Strategy and Needed Other Measures
• Attainment Demonstration
• Impracticability Demonstration (for “moderate” annual PM2.5 area) • Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Milestones
• Contingency Measures
• General Conformity
• Transportation Conformity
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Demonstration
• PM Precursors
• New Source Review (NSR)
• Emissions Statements
ES-11
623 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Collaboration and Outreach
The 2016 AQMP relies on significant integration and coordination with other agencies in order to successfully meet the Basin’s clean air goals. This integration included the traditional collaboration between the SCAQMD, CARB, U.S. EPA and SCAG but also includes the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission, and the California State Transportation Agency (Caltrans).

Regional and local governments, such as counties, cities, coalitions of governments, and regional transportation agencies, have also been part of the integrated planning process. Such a process is useful when implementing strategies that are consistent with the State’s Vision for Clean Air4 and strategies and goals of the 2016 AQMP. In addition to an integrated planning process with other agencies, the 2016 AQMP development process incorporates collaborative efforts by a wide range of non-government stakeholders. These efforts focus on businesses, environmental and health organizations, community groups, and academia. For example, in the months leading to the 2016 AQMP development, a series of AQMP White Papers were published in close collaboration with stakeholders. 5 These provided the
technical and policy foundation for many aspects of the Plan. A two-day Control Strategy Symposium took place as a forum of ideas for new control technologies, efficiencies and innovative approaches to reduce emissions. The 2016 AQMP Advisory Group also continues to meet to discuss specific plan elements, requirements, and control strategies. The SCAQMD has a long and productive history of reducing health risk from air toxics and criteria pollutant emissions through an extensive control program including traditional and innovative rules and policies. A continuing commitment to an inclusive, transparent, and collaborative process is key to program success. 4 http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/vision/vision.htm.
5 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groups-committees/aqmp-advisory-group/2016-aqmp-whitepapers. 1-12ES-12

624 of 2287
ntroduction
hapter 1
IntroductionChapter 1
Substantial progress improvements in air quality have been made, but the region still does not meet all federal and state health standards. The 2016 AQMP is designed to provide a path to clean air and address Clean Air Act requirements for ozone and PM2.5 standards.
625 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Purpose 1-1
Purpose of the 2016 AQMP
 Historical Perspective 1-2
History of air pollution and the SCAQMD
 Regional Setting 1-4
SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, emission sources,
and population
 U.S. EPA Standards 1-6
U.S. EPA ozone and particulate matter standards
626 of 2287
 Air Quality Progress 1-9
Past successes
 Progress in Implementing the
2007/2012 AQMP 1-11
Adopted measures from the 2012 AQMP
 2016 AQMP 1-15
White papers, scope and approach for
the 2016 AQMP
 Format of This Document 1-22
Chapters and appendices of the 2016 AQMP
627 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-1
Purpose
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires areas that are not attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or federal standards) to develop and implement an emission reduction strategy that will bring the area into attainment in a timely manner. The State of California also requires all feasible measures towards achievement of State of California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS or State standards) at the earliest practicable date. This strategy and the underlying technical analyses are integrated into Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs or Plans) for the region. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District), with contributions from and collaborations with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has developed four comprehensive AQMPs since the late 1990’s to address updates to air quality standards and attainment deadlines.

The 2016 AQMP evaluates integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS in Figure 1-1 as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment deadlines. A Plan integrating several NAAQS and deadlines avoids wasted resources, streamlines efforts to demonstrate compliance and review of CAA requirements, and takes advantage of the co-benefits resulting from implementation of the integrated strategies.

The 2016 AQMP
also provides a
preliminary
evaluation of the
most recent federal
8-hour ozone
standard (70 ppb),
and incorporates
energy,
transportation,
goods movement,
infrastructure and
other planning
efforts that affect
future air quality.

FIGURE 1-1

ATTAINMENT DEADLINES FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS EVALUATED IN 2016 AQMP
8-hour Ozone
(75 ppb)
2032
8-hour Ozone
(80 ppb)
(updated
from the
2007 and
2012 AQMPs)
2024
1-hour Ozone
(120 ppb)
(updated
from the
2012 AQMP)
2023
Annual
PM2.5
(12 µg/m3)
2021-2025
24-hour
PM2.5
(35 µg/m3)
(evaluated as
"serious"
nonattainment
area)
2019
628 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-2
Historical Perspective
Photochemical smog is air pollution containing ozone and other reactive chemical compounds formed by nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons in sunlight. Los Angeles recorded its first smog event on July 26, 1943, although the region was experiencing smog for years before that due to the region’s industrial smoke and fumes, as well as a growing population and increasing number of motor vehicles. In 1945, the City of Los Angeles established a Bureau of Smoke Control, and in 1947, State law authorized the creation of county-wide districts with jurisdiction across cities. The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors created the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the first in the nation, as a county-wide air quality agency with broad powers to adopt and enforce air pollution regulations. That same year, the newly-formed agency required all major industries to have air pollution permits and adopted a rule to require metal melting plants to control dust and fumes with baghouse1 controls. In 1948, Arie J. Haagen-Smit, a
biochemistry professor at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, started examining the biology of plants and crops that had been damaged by smog. By the early 1950’s, Dr. Haagen-Smit had determined smog caused eye irritation and damage to plants and materials, including rubber tubing that cracked in seven minutes when exposed to high smog levels. In 1953, the Los Angeles County APCD started requiring controls to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from industrial gasoline storage tanks, and vapor leaks from the filling of gasoline tank trucks and underground storage tanks at service stations.

These actions were critical in helping to reduce the estimated 2,000 tons per day (tpd) of hydrocarbons and 250 tpd of NOx2
at a time when the population in the region was only five million residents.

A Smog Emergency
Warning System was
launched in 1955 when
the highest one-hour
ozone level of 680 parts
per billion (ppb) was
recorded in downtown
L.A. The first network of
air monitors was initiated
in 1956 and backyard
trash incinerators were
banned in 1958 when
trash collection programs
were established in the
region. Other regulated sources included petroleum-based solvents, landfills, refineries, power plants, and industrial facilities.

1 A baghouse or bag filter is an air pollution control device that removes particulates out of air or gas released from commercial or industrial processes.
2 “Second Technical and Administrative Report on Air Pollution in Los Angeles County,” Annual Report 1950–51, Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles County, California, 1952.

Downtown Los Angeles, 1950s
Smog got so bad in the shadow of
City Hall that pedestrians would carry
handkerchiefs to wipe away tears.
629 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-3
Recognizing that counties could not adequately regulate motor vehicle pollution, the California Legislature established the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board in 1960 to test vehicle emissions and certify emission control devices. Six years later, California became the first state in the nation to establish automobile tailpipe emission standards, one year before the creation of the CARB. By 1969, the first state ambient air quality standards were enacted in California. In the following year, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) was formed and the federal CAA became law. It soon became apparent that local programs were not enough to solve regional problems, as air pollution is not contained within city and county jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, air basins, defined by logical geographical/topographical boundaries, became the basis for regulatory programs.

U.S. EPA first adopted NAAQS in 1971 and California adopted regulations requiring the installation of a vehicle pollution control device, the catalytic converter, starting with the 1975 model year. Over time, motor vehicle fuels were reformulated to reduce photochemically reactive olefins, remove lead in gasoline, and utilize fewer smog-forming and toxic ingredients.

In 1977, the Los Angeles County APCD merged with the APCDs of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties to form the South Coast Air Quality Management District, pursuant to the Lewis Air Quality Management Act adopted by the California Legislature in 1976. The following year, gas stations were required to install vapor recovery “boots” on gasoline nozzles, further reducing hydrocarbon losses when filling the vehicle tank. SCAQMD has continued to adopt and implement regulatory measures in order to reduce air pollution emissions from a wide range of sources and to reduce public exposure to unhealthful air pollution. In addition, efforts on the federal and state level continue to contribute toward reducing air pollution from mobile and area sources in order to fulfill commitments to achieve the ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 1977
SCAQMD
Formed
1970
US EPA Formed
- Federal Clean
Air Act
1967
CARB
Formed
1955
Highest OneHour Ozone
Level Recorded
680 ppb
1947
LA County
activated an Air
Pollution
Control District
1943
First Smog
Event
Recorded in
Los Angeles
630 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-4
Regional Setting
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction (Figure 1-2) over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, consisting of the South Coast Air
Basin (Basin), and the
Riverside County
portions of the Salton
Sea Air Basin (SSAB)
and Mojave Desert Air
Basin (MDAB). The
Basin, which is a subregion of the District’s
jurisdiction, is
bounded by the Pacific
Ocean to the west and
the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and San
Jacinto mountains to
the north and east. It
includes all of Orange
County and the nondesert portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and
San Bernardino counties. The Riverside County portion of the SSAB is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward to the Palo Verde Valley. The Coachella Valley Planning Area is a federal nonattainment area that is part of a sub-region of Riverside County in the SSAB that is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains to the west and the eastern boundary of the Coachella Valley to the east.

The Los Angeles County portion of the MDAB (known as North County or Antelope Valley) is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles/Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County border to the east. The SSAB and MDAB were previously included in a single large basin called the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB).

The Coachella Valley Planning Area is impacted by pollutant transport from the Basin. In addition, pollutant transport also impacts the Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, Ventura County, and San Diego County. As part of this AQMP, an update on the status of the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment area is provided in Chapter 7.

The topography and climate of Southern California combine to make the Basin an area of high air pollution potential. A warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cooler surface layer, which traps the pollutants near the ground. Light winds can further limit ventilation. Additionally, abundant sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions which produce ozone and the majority of the particulate matter. The region experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the nation except Phoenix, AZ.

South Coast
Air Quality Management District

SCAQMD Jurisdiction
Mojave Desert
Air Basin
Salton Sea
Air Basin
San Diego
Air Basin
South
Central
Coast Air Basin
South Coast
Air Basin
San Diego County Imperial County
Riverside County
Los Angeles
County
Kern County San Bernardino County
Orange
County
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County
San Joaquin
Valley
Air Basin
FIGURE 1-2

BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND

NEIGHBORING FEDERAL PLANNING AREAS
631 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-5
The Basin’s economic base is diverse. Historically, the four counties of the Basin have collectively comprised one of the largest and fastest-growing local economies in the United States. Significant changes have occurred in the composition of the industrial base of the region in the past twenty years.

As in many areas of the country, a large segment of heavy manufacturing, including steel and tire manufacturing as well as automobile assembly, has been phased down. Due to growth in shipping and trade, service and logistics, businesses have replaced some of the heavy industry, although there are still significant manufacturing operations (recent report in The Wall Street Journal3 ).

Emission Sources
In spite of substantial reductions already achieved through effective control strategies, additional significant reductions of NOx and PM in the Basin and limited, strategic reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are needed to attain the federal and State air quality standards.

Air pollution forms either directly or indirectly from pollutants emitted from a variety of sources. These sources can be natural, such as oil seeps, vegetation, or windblown dust, but the majority of emissions in the Basin are related to human activity. The air pollution control strategy in the 2016 AQMP is directed at controlling man-made sources. Examples of man-made emission sources include fuel combustion sources, such as cars and trucks, evaporation of organic liquids, such as those used in coating and cleaning processes, and abrasion processes, such as tires on roadways. The emission sources in the Basin are described in Chapter 3. Natural emissions are included in the air quality modeling analysis in Chapter 5.

Population
Since the end of World War II, the Basin has experienced faster population growth than the rest of the nation. The annual
average percent
growth has slowed but
the overall population
of the region is
expected to continue
to increase through
2023 and beyond.

Figure 1-3 shows the
estimated population
and projections based
on SCAG’s regional
growth forecast.

Despite this population
growth, air quality has improved significantly over the years, primarily due to the impacts of air quality

3 http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/15/where-are-the-most-u-s-manufacturing-workers-los-angeles/. 1990
• 13 Million
2000
• 14.8 Million
• 1.4% Annual
Increase
2008
• 15.6
Million
• 0.7%
Annual
Increase
2012a
• 16.4
Million
• 1.3%
Annual
Increase
2023a
• 17.6
Million
• 0.7%
Annual
Increase
2031a
• 18.5
Million
• 0.6%
annual
Increase
a Based on SCAG‘s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan
b Average percent increase per year over the period
FIGURE 1-3

REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH
632 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-6
control programs at the local, state and federal levels. Figure 1-4 shows the trends since 1990 of the 8- hour ozone levels, the 1-hour ozone levels, and annual average PM2.5 concentrations (since 1999), compared to the regional gross domestic product, total employment and population. The 2007–2009 recession had a clear impact on gross domestic product and employment, but as depicted by Figure 1-4, the economy is recovering with rebounding employment numbers. Human activity in the region has an impact on achieving
reductions in emissions.

However, the ozone and
PM levels continue to
trend downward as the
economy and population
increase, demonstrating
that it is possible to
maintain a healthy
economy while improving
public health through air
quality improvements.

FIGURE 1-4
PERCENT CHANGE IN AIR QUALITY ALONG WITH DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR THE 4-COUNTY REGION (1990–2015) U.S. EPA Standards
The federal CAA requires U.S. EPA to review NAAQS every five years considering the most recent scientific and health effects information, air quality information, and quantitative risk (e.g., size of at-risk groups affected). The review must consider the uncertainties and limitations of the scientific evidence as well as conclusions from U.S. EPA experts and advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is an independent scientific advisory committee established by the CAA charged with providing advice to U.S. EPA. The purpose of the review is to determine if the current standards are “requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.” It should be noted that there are both primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary standards are designed to protect public health such as the health of "sensitive" populations including persons with asthma, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards protect public welfare such as protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

After approving a standard, the U.S. EPA designates areas across the nation as attainment or as nonattainment of the standard. If an area is designated nonattainment of the NAAQS, the State is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating compliance with a series of CAA 633 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-7
requirements. Chapter 6 provides a detailed explanation of the federal CAA requirements along with how the requirements are being addressed.

In addition, the U.S. EPA requires that transportation conformity budgets be established based on the most recent planning assumptions (i.e., within the last five years) and approved motor vehicle emission models. Transportation conformity ensures that transportation plans and programs do not cause or contribute to any new violation of a standard, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, or delay the timely attainment of the air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is based on the most recent assumptions provided by both CARB and SCAG for motor vehicle emissions and demographic updates and includes updated transportation conformity budgets, located in Chapter 6.

Chapter 2 provides more detail on the federal and State ambient air quality standards, attainment status trends, and specific pollutant information such as the health effects due to exposure. The following is a brief overview of the ozone and PM NAAQS and attainment requirements that are included in the 2016 AQMP.

Ozone
U.S. EPA classifies areas of ozone nonattainment (e.g., “extreme,” “severe,” “serious,” “moderate” or “marginal”) based on how much an area exceeds the standard, which in turn affects the required attainment date. The higher the current exceedance, the more time is allowed to demonstrate attainment in recognition of the greater challenge involved. However, the higher classifications are also subject to more stringent requirements.

In 1979, the U.S. EPA approved a 1-hour ozone standard (120 ppb) that was replaced in 1997 with a more stringent 8-hour ozone standard (80 ppb) (U.S. EPA subsequently revoked the 1-hour standard entirely, effective in 2005). In 2008, the 8-hour ozone standard was lowered to 75 ppb. Because the Basin was designated as “extreme” nonattainment, the region has 20 years4 to attain the ozone standards from the effective date of the final designation. For the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards, the attainment dates are June 15, 2024 and July 20, 2032, respectively. Because the attainment dates are mid-year deadlines, the demonstration of attainment and implementation of all emission reduction measures must take place by the previous calendar year, 2023 and 2031, respectively. Chapter 3 provides the emission inventory for these milestone years and Chapter 5 provides the modeled projected air quality in those years to demonstrate attainment of the standards. Although revoked in 2005, the 1- hour ozone standard originally should have been met by November 2010. The U.S. EPA then set a new deadline of February 6, 2023, with demonstration of the 1-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2022 in the Basin.

As an “extreme” nonattainment area, the Basin ozone SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is required to be submitted within four years5 after the designation effective date of July 20, 2012, thus by July 20, 2016. U.S. EPA has some discretion under the Act with submittal deadlines, and penalties are not incurred until 18 months after a finding of late submittal.

4 CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 181.
5 CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 182(e) that “extreme” areas submit according to Section 182(c)(2). 634 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-8
Particulate Matter
In July 1987, U.S. EPA promulgated a 24-hour NAAQS of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), which the Basin has not violated since 2008. SCAQMD requested re-designation as attainment, and the re-designation and PM10 maintenance plan were approved by U.S. EPA effective July 26, 2013.

On December 17, 2006, the U.S. EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 and the Basin was subsequently designated “moderate” nonattainment for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on December 14, 2009. U.S. EPA requires the SIP to be submitted no later than three years after the designation, hence December 14, 2012. The 2012 AQMP projected attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 2014; however, due to the region’s long-running drought conditions, attainment by 2014 or 2015 has been deemed not possible. The later date would have been an acceptable attainment date pursuant to the federal CAA. 6
Thus, the SCAQMD requested that U.S. EPA reclassify the Basin as ”serious” nonattainment and committed7
to demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not beyond December 31, 20198 as part of the 2016 AQMP. In
addition, more stringent “serious” area requirements now apply including implementation of Best Available Control Measures / Best Available Control Technology (BACM/BACT), a lower major source threshold (from 100 tons per year to 70 tons per year), and an update to the reasonable further progress (RFP) analysis.

In 1997, U.S. EPA approved an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 µg/m3. In 2012, U.S. EPA revised the NAAQS for the annual PM2.5 standard from 15.0 µg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual averages does not exceed 12.0 µg/m3. States have until 2021 to meet the 2012 PM2.5 standard for “moderate” nonattainment areas, and if necessary, up to four additional years if the area is re-classified as “serious” nonattainment, or 2025. Annual PM2.5 emissions in the Basin have experienced a steady decline over the years since 2001, attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (15.0 µg/m3) in 2013. On July 8, 2016 U.S. EPA issued a final rule for “Clean Data Determination” based on 2011–2013 monitoring period in South Coast Air Basin attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 (15 µg/m3) and 1997 24-hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3). The determination was published in Federal Register on July 25, 2016 (with effective date on August 24, 2016).

The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how the region will achieve the 2012 annual PM2.5 (12.0 µg/m3) as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment deadline.

6 For a “moderate” nonattainment area, “the attainment date shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area’s designation as nonattainment.” (CAA, Title 1, Part D, Subpart 4, § 188(c)(1)).
7 SCAQMD Reclassification letter to U.S. EPA, July 28, 2015. 8 Based on CAA, Title 1, Part D, Subpart 4, § 188 (c)(2) for PM2.5 attainment at the end of the 10th calendar year after effective date of designations for “serious” nonattainment areas. 635 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-9
For PM standards, “moderate9” nonattainment areas and areas reclassified as “serious10” nonattainment are required to submit a SIP 18 months from the effective date of designation.

Air Quality Progress
Today, the population in the region is over 16 million people, with 2012 emissions of approximately 500 tpd of VOCs and 522 tpd of NOx. Based on current regulations and actions already taken, emissions are projected to be approximately 379 tpd of VOC and 255 tpd of NOx by 2023. By 2031, emissions are projected to be further reduced to approximately 362 tpd of VOC emissions and 214 tpd of NOx emissions (see Appendix III for 2012, 2023, and 2031 summer planning inventory emissions). However, these levels are not low enough to meet the NAAQS for the Basin, so additional emission reductions are necessary.

Substantial progress has been made in reducing ozone and PM emissions through regulatory measures, voluntary actions and partnerships with other agencies and stakeholders. Figure 1-5 illustrates the ozone and PM ambient air concentrations as a percentage of the federal standard, demonstrating that while air quality progress has been dramatic since the 1990s, the five NAAQS that are analyzed and updated in the 2016 AQMP have yet to be met. Detailed ozone and PM concentrations and trends can be found in Chapter 2.

Even with the substantial progress, more action must occur to meet the federal and California healthbased standards. The 2016 AQMP explores new and innovative ways to accomplish these goals through

9 CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 4, Section 189 (a)(2)(B). 10 CAA, Title I, Part D, Subpart 4, Section 189 (b)(2).

Winter day photo of downtown L.A. under snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains 636 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-10
incentive programs, efficiency improvements, recognizing co-benefits from other programs, regulatory measures, and other voluntary actions.

As vowed by Dr. Haagen-Smit 64 years ago in 1952,
“Smog is on the way out; let us speed up its
departure and let us keep it out.”11

11 Haagen-Smit, A.J. (May 1952), “Smog Research Pays Off.” Engineering and Science, Volume XV. 0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Design Value, as Percent of Standard O3 (8-Hour, 2015) O3 (8-Hour, 2008) O3 (1-Hour, 1979)
24-Hour PM2.5 PM2.5 (Annual)
Federal Standard
FIGURE 1-5

DESIGN VALUES IN PERCENTAGES OF THE FEDERAL STANDARDS
637 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-11
Progress in Implementing the 2007/2012 AQMP
District’s Actions
The ozone portion of the 2007 AQMP has been approved by U.S. EPA into the SIP. The “moderate” 24- hour PM2.5 elements of the 2012 AQMP have also been approved by U.S. EPA, and in January 2016 the U.S. EPA approved the Basin’s re-designation as a “serious” nonattainment area for PM2.5. These approvals include SIP revisions submitted in response to U.S. EPA’s initial findings.

The District continues to implement the 2012 AQMP, which received a limited approval and limited disapproval by U.S. EPA on April 14, 2016. Progress in implementing the 2012 AQMP can be measured by the progress in implementing control measures and the resulting emission reductions. Emission reduction commitments and reductions which were achieved in 2014 and will be achieved in 2023 through already-adopted measures are based on the emission inventories and milestone years from the 2012 AQMP.

In 2013, several rulemaking efforts were completed or initiated to implement the 2012 AQMP. Specifically, Rules 444 (Open Burning) and 445 (Residential Wood Burning Devices) were amended to implement control measures BCM-01 and BCM-02, which were expected to achieve PM2.5 reductions estimated at 11.7 tons during winter episodic conditions. In addition, Rule 1114 (Petroleum Refinery Coking Operations) was adopted to implement Control Measure MCS-01, and is expected to result in a VOC reduction of 129 tons per year, a methane reduction of 547 tons per year and a reduction in hazardous air pollutants of 26 tons per year.

In 2014, there were 13 rule amendments approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board.

Five of these rules were amended as a result of SIP rule implementation issues (e.g., availability of advanced technology) and two of these rules were amended to strengthen public health protections with more stringent toxic emission requirements. The remaining rule amendments provided administrative revisions.

In 2015, rulemaking concluded to implement Control Measure CMB-01 (Further Reductions from RECLAIM), which committed to achieve 3 tpd of NOx emissions by 2023 in the 2012 AQMP. In December 2015, the SCAQMD Governing Board approved amendments to Regulation XX which will reduce 12 tpd of NOx RECLAIM Trading Credits by 2023.

In addition, Rule 1113 was amended in 2016 achieving almost 1 tpd of VOC reductions, primarily by limiting the small container exemption. Other ongoing rulemaking efforts committed to in the 2012 AQMP seek further VOC reductions from emission sources such as adhesive and sealant applications (Rule 1168), mold release products (Rule 1161) and vacuum trucks (Rule 1188). However, these rules, and other VOC rules, have not been adopted or implemented yet as staff addresses technical and policy challenges. In lowering limits on the VOC content of coatings, solvents, adhesives, sealants, lubricants, inks and other VOC-containing products, manufacturers, in many cases, are using compounds that have 2013 2014 2015 638 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-12
been exempted from the definition of VOC. These exemptions are based primarily on evidence that the compound does not significantly contribute to ozone formation. However, some exempt compounds may increase toxic risk to nearby receptors or workers. During the development of the VOC Controls White Paper12 overseen by a 2016 AQMP Advisory Group, the need for regulating VOCs to assist in meeting the ozone standard was evaluated. The white paper discusses the role of VOCs in ozone and PM2.5 formation, including atmospheric chemistry, potential detrimental effects, and the rationale for the NOx heavy control strategy. Finally, the white paper considered and prioritized potential VOC control approaches such as sensitivity analysis, temporal or geographical, seasonality and incentives. It was determined that VOC reduction measures that lead to the increased use of chemicals that are known or suspected to be toxic should be avoided until it can be demonstrated that these replacement products do not lead to increased toxic risk for workers or the general public.

There were 12 amendments to rules or guidelines approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 2015.

Two of these rules reduced NOx emissions, two rules reduced VOC emissions, two amendments focused on improving transportation rules, and six amendments strengthened public health protections by reducing air toxic emissions.

Table 1-1 lists the SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP commitments and the control measures or rules that were adopted through 2015. As shown in Table 1-1, for the control measures adopted by the SCAQMD over this period, 11.7 tons per day of PM2.5 reductions were achieved by 2014 and 2.4 tons per day of VOC reductions and 19.5 tons per day of NOx reductions will be achieved by 2023. The new control strategy and attainment demonstrations in the 2016 AQMP are expected to supersede any previous commitments not achieved and not re-introduced in the proposed control strategy.

N/A in the tables indicate a measure designed to ensure that reductions assumed to occur will in fact occur. TBD reductions are to be determined once the technical assessment is complete, and inventory and specific control approach are identified.

12 Final VOC Controls White Paper (October 2015): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/Agendas/aqmp/white-paper-working-groups/wp-voc-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 639 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-13
TABLE 1-1
2012 AQMP Emission Reductions (tons per day) by Measure/Adoption Date Control
Measure #
Control Measure Title Adoption
Date

COMMITMENT ACHIEVED
2014 2023 2014 2023
PM2.5 EMISSIONS
BCM-01 Further Reductions from Residential
Wood Burning Devices (R445)
2013 7.1 -- 7.1 --
BCM-02 Further Reductions from Open Burning
(R444)
2013 4.6 -- 4.6 --
BCM-03 Emission Reductions from Under-Fired
Charbroilers

TBD -- TBD -- TBD
BCM-04 Further Ammonia Reductions from
Livestock Waste

TBD -- TBD -- TBD
TOTAL PM2.5 REDUCTIONS 11.7 -- 11.7 --
NOx EMISSIONS
OFFRD-01 Extension of the SOON Provision for
Construction/Industrial Equipment
Ongoing -- 7.5 -- 7.5
CMB-01 Further Reductions from RECLAIM
[Regulation XX]
2015 2 3 0 12
CMB-02 NOx Reduction from Biogas Flares Rulemaking
Underway
-- TBD -- TBD
CMB-03 Reductions from Commercial Space
Heating
2016 -- 0.18 -- TBD
TOTAL NOx REDUCTIONS 2 10.7 0 19.5

VOC EMISSIONS
CTS-01 Further VOC Reductions from
Architectural Coatings [R1113]
2016 -- 2 -- 1
CTS-02 Further Emission Reductions from
Miscellaneous Coatings, Adhesives,
Solvents and Lubricants
Rulemaking
Underway
-- 1 -- --
CTS-03 Further VOC Reduction from Mold
Release Products [R1161]
Rulemaking
Underway
-- 0.8 -- --
FUG-01 VOC Reductions from Vacuum Trucks
[R1188]
Rulemaking
Underway
-- TBD -- --
FUG-02 Emission Reduction from LPG Transfer
and Dispensing [R1177]
Rulemaking
Underway
-- 1 -- --
FUG-03 Emission Reduction from Fugitive VOC
Emissions
2016 -- 1 -- --
MCS-01 Application of All Feasible Measure
Assessment [R1114]
Ongoing TBD TBD 0.4 1.4
TOTAL VOC REDUCTIONS 0 5.8 0.4 2.4
640 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-14
TABLE 1-1 (CONCLUDED)
2012 AQMP Emission Reductions (tons per day) by Measure/Adoption Date Control
Measure #
Control Measure Title Adoption
Date

COMMITMENT ACHIEVED
2014 2023 2014 2023

MULTI-POLLUTANT
IND-01 Backstop Measure for Indirect
Sources of Emissions from Ports and
Port-Related Facilities [PR4001]
Rulemaking
Underway
N/A
13 N/A N/A N/A
MCS-02 Further Emission Reductions from
Greenwaste Processing (Chipping and
Grinding Operations not associated
with composting)
Rulemaking
Underway
-- TBD -- TBD
MCS-03 Improved Start-Up, Shutdown and
Turnaround Procedures [R1123]
2014 -- TBD14-- TBD
INC-01 Economic Incentive Programs to
Adopt Zero and Near-Zero
Technologies
Ongoing -- -- -- --
INC-02 Expedited Permitting and CEQA
Preparation Facilitating the
Manufacturing of Zero and Near-Zero
Technologies [All Pollutants]
Ongoing -- -- -- --
EDU-01 Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions
from Education, Outreach and
Incentives [All Pollutants]
Ongoing -- -- -- --

13 Measure is designed to ensure reductions projected to occur are achieved. 14 Reductions to be determined once the technical assessment is complete, and inventory and control approach are identified.
641 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-15
As part of the development of the 2016 AQMP, a series of ten White Papers on key topics were published. These
papers provided better integration of major planning
issues regarding air quality, climate, energy,
transportation, and business needs. Each White Paper
had a specific Working Group to provide input and
feedback.
2016 AQMP Advisory Group members and recommended
technical experts participated in White Paper Working
Group meetings, which were open to the public. The
development of the papers began in June 2014 and the last paper was completed in December 2015.
2016 AQMP
White Papers
All versions of the white papers, including the final versions presented to the SCAQMD Governing Board, are available online at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/about/groups-committees/aqmp-advisorygroup/2016-aqmp-white-papers along with working group meeting materials. Each of the White Papers are summarized below.

Blueprint for Clean Air
The Blueprint for the Clean Air White Paper provides background information regarding the 2016 AQMP as well as introductory discussions relevant to the other white papers. The white paper discusses the health benefits of clean air, the standards evaluated in the 2016 AQMP, the additional analysis needed, and what it will take to achieve the standards. In addition, the white paper discusses the general approaches in developing the 2016 AQMP control strategies such as striving to eliminate reliance on the CAA Section 182(e)(5) measures to the extent feasible, fair share reductions at federal, state and local levels, incentivizing zero and near-zero emission technologies, and developing efficient and cost-effective strategies.
642 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-16
Goods Movement
Advanced vehicle technologies will be needed to achieve clean air goals. The Goods Movement White Paper evaluates goods movement sectors such as ships, locomotives, and trucks and analyzes a variety of advanced technologies such as hybrid-electric, advanced natural gas, fuel cells, electric, as well as potential infrastructure needs and commercialization schedules. This white paper also develops scenarios that assume different future mixes of these advanced technologies.

Passenger Transportation
The Passenger Transportation White Paper examines advanced technologies and operational efficiency opportunities, as well as programs that can help accelerate fleet turnover. Advantages that could be gleaned from the implementation of other programs such as SB 375 – The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 are also discussed.

Energy Outlook
The Energy Outlook White Paper evaluates the energy implications due to deployment of various types of advanced technologies. Some of these advanced pollution control technologies for mobile sources will be based on traditional energy sources, while others will rely on alternative energy sources such as electricity or hydrogen. The Energy Outlook White Paper describes the demand and supply of all energy sources for the Basin and explores how that might change under current and future programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, this white paper evaluates the existing and needed infrastructure for various energy sources. This white paper also evaluates the cost of these energy sources – including the cost to distribute the energy, cost impact to the end user, and infrastructure costs.

Residential and Commercial Energy Use
Reducing, managing, and changing the way energy is used in the commercial and residential sectors can provide emission reductions, reduced energy costs, and cross sector benefits such as reduced water consumption. The Residential and Commercial Energy Use White Paper provides insight and analysis on energy usage, while reviewing resulting emissions within the residential and commercial sectors.

Industrial Facility Modernization
The Industrial Facility Modernization White Paper identifies the hurdles to replace older equipment and mechanisms to incentivize use of clean equipment technologies and the modernization of industrial stationary source equipment.

VOC Controls
The VOC Controls White Paper studies the role VOCs play in the ozone and PM2.5 attainment strategy.

The potential contribution of intermediate and semi-volatile organic compounds are also explored. The need for VOC reductions to achieve clean air goals is re-examined, along with the requisite quantity and timing of VOC emission reductions.
643 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-17
PM Controls
The PM Controls White Paper continues to evaluate feasible control technologies for sources of directly emitted PM2.5 as well as precursor emission sources including commercial cooking, fugitive dust, ammonia, and SOx sources. This white paper addresses how modeling results can assist in demonstrating the benefits of targeting both direct and indirect PM2.5 emission sources, including source categories for potential control through traditional approaches as well as through seasonal, episodic or geographically focused controls.

Off-Road Equipment
The Off-Road Equipment White Paper examines advanced technology opportunities as well as programs to accelerate the transition to newer equipment. This category consists of a wide variety of emission sources including construction and mining equipment such as forklifts, cranes, and portable engines. The focus of this white paper is on advanced technologies that go beyond current emission standards and what efforts will be needed to further reduce emissions from these sources.

A Business Case for Clean Air Strategies
A Business Case for Clean Air Strategies White Paper develops principles and concepts for control measures and related programs to be included in the 2016 AQMP that, to the extent possible, create a business case for deployment of needed technologies and efficiency measures towards attaining upcoming federal air quality standards. A business case exists where a technology, fuel, or other strategy reduces emissions and also improves energy efficiency, reduces fuel or maintenance costs, creates new job opportunities, or has other economic benefits. In addition to seeking to minimize potential adverse impacts, this white paper examines how SCAQMD staff, in developing the 2016 AQMP, will explore means to maximize emission control strategies that have a business case for implementation.

Scope
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this 2016 AQMP is designed to address the federal 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, to satisfy the planning requirements of the federal CAA, and to provide an update on the strategy to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Specific federal CAA requirements to be included in the 2016 AQMP are discussed later in this section. Once approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board and CARB, the 2016 AQMP will be submitted to U.S. EPA as the SIP for the Basin.

In addition, the 2016 AQMP includes a chapter reporting on the air quality status of the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (Coachella Valley) (Chapter 7) and future air quality requirements (Chapter 8). An additional chapter provides the proposed air toxics control program that will reduce toxic risk (Chapter 9) and another examines the interplay between air quality and other planning efforts addressing climate change, energy and transportation (Chapter 10).

Approach
As demonstrated in Chapter 5, with the existing control program and the new control strategy in the 2016 AQMP, the Basin can attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2031, the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 644 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-18
2025, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 2019, as well as the now revoked 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Under the federal CAA, the Basin must achieve the federal NAAQS “as expeditiously as practicable.” Therefore, if feasible measures are available, they must be adopted and implemented in the SIP. Chapter 4 of the 2016 AQMP outlines a comprehensive control strategy that meets the requirement for expeditious progress towards an attainment date for the five NAAQS being analyzed. A provision of the federal CAA, Section 182(e)(5), allows “extreme” ozone nonattainment areas to take credit for emission reductions from future improvements and breakthroughs in control techniques and technologies (known as the “black box”). As shown in the ozone strategy in Chapter 4, “black box” emission reductions strategies are now fully defined in terms of technology, but rely heavily on incentives to successfully achieve the emission reductions needed to reach attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given the magnitude of these needed emission reductions, it is critical that the SCAQMD maintain its continuing progress and work actively towards defining and achieving as many emission reductions as possible, and not wait until subsequent AQMPs to begin to address this looming shortfall.

With regard to the PM2.5 standards, only a few air monitoring stations currently exceed, and only one is projected to exceed the NAAQS. Further controls for PM2.5 are included to ensure attainment with the PM2.5 standards.

The control measures contained in the 2016 AQMP can be categorized as follows:

Ozone Measures. These measures provide for necessary actions to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2031, including incentive-based measures, cobenefits from other programs such as climate change mitigation and energy efficiency, NOx and VOC regulatory measures, technology assessments, and key investments. In addition, the accelerated measures allow for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2023 and the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 2022.

Ozone measures include actions to reduce NOx and VOC emissions from both stationary (point and area) and mobile sources. The mobile source measures include actions to be taken by the SCAQMD, CARB and the U.S. EPA.

PM2.5 Measures. These measures serve to reduce emissions locally and regionally in order to ensure attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS is anticipated to be met without further controls. PM measures can be implemented as contingency measures, given that attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS will be achieved through implementation of NOx reductions included in the ozone strategy.

Contingency Measures. These measures are to be automatically implemented if the Basin fails to achieve the PM2.5 standards by the latest statutory attainment date or Reasonable Further Progress requirements.

Reductions achieved through adopted rules that reduce ambient levels below the NAAQS provide an alternative method to comply with contingency measure requirements.
645 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-19
Transportation Control Measures. These measures are generally designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as included in SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.

Some of the control measures achieve emission reductions by taking advantage of existing programs, while some control measures focus on incentives, outreach, and education to bring about emission reductions through voluntary participation and behavioral changes needed to complement regulations.

Need for Integrated and Coordinated Planning
The Basin faces several ozone and PM2.5 attainment challenges, as strategies for significant emission reductions become harder to identify and the federal standards continue to become more stringent.

California’s greenhouse gas reduction targets under AB 32 add new challenges and timelines that affect many of the same sources that emit criteria pollutants. In finding the most cost-effective and efficient path to meet multiple deadlines for multiple air quality and climate objectives, an integrated planning approach is optimal. Responsibilities for achieving these goals span all levels of government, and coordinated and consistent planning efforts among multiple government agencies are a key component of this integrated approach.

Federal CAA Planning Requirements Addressed by 2016 AQMP In November 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 CAA Amendments was an overhaul of the planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting NAAQS.

The CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones.

There are several sets of general planning requirements in the federal CAA, both for nonattainment areas (Section 172(c)) and for implementation plans in general (Section 110(a)(2)). These requirements are listed and briefly described in Tables 1-2 and 1-3, respectively. The general provisions apply to all applicable pollutants unless superseded by pollutant-specific requirements. Chapter 6 and Appendix 6 describe the pollutant-specific CAA requirements and how these requirements are satisfied by the 2016 AQMP.
646 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-20
TABLE 1-2
Nonattainment Plan Provisions [CAA Section 172(c)]

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION
Reasonably available
control measures
Implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable [Section 172(c)(1)]
Reasonable further
progress
Provision for reasonable further progress, which is defined as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date” [Section 172(c)(2)] Inventory Development and periodic revision of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources [Section 172(c)(3)] Allowable emission
levels
Identification and quantification of allowable emission levels for major new or modified stationary sources [Section 172(c)(4)]
Permits for new and
modified stationary
sources
Permit requirements for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources [Section 172(c)(5)]
Other measures Inclusion of all enforceable emission limitations and control measures as may be necessary to attain the standard by the applicable attainment deadline [Section 172(c)(6)]
Contingency measures Implementation of contingency measures to be undertaken in the event of failure to make reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS [Section 172(c)(9)]
647 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-21
TABLE 1-3
General CAA Requirements for Implementation Plans [CAA Section 110(a)]

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION
Enforceable emission
limitations
Enforceable emission limitations or other control measures as needed to meet the requirements of the CAA [Section 110(a)(2)(A)] Ambient monitoring An ambient air quality monitoring program [Section 110(a)(2)(B)] Enforcement and
regulation
A program for the enforcement of adopted control measures and emission limitations and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source to assure that the NAAQS are achieved [Section 110(a)(2)(C)]
Interstate transport Adequate provisions to inhibit emissions that will contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of NAAQS or interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in any other state [Section 110(a)(2)(D)] Adequate resources Assurances that adequate personnel, funding, and authority are available to carry out the plan [Section 110(a)(2)(E)]
Source testing and
monitoring
Requirements for emission monitoring and reporting by the source operators [Section 110(a)(2)(F)]
Emergency authority Ability to bring suit to enforce against source presenting imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or environment [Section 110(a)(2)(G)]
Plan revisions Provisions for revising the air quality plan to incorporate changes in the standards or in the availability of improved control methods [Section 110(a)(2)(H)]
Other CAA
requirements
Adequate provisions to meet applicable requirements relating to new source review, consultation, notification, and prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection contained in other sections of the CAA [Section 110(a)(2)(I),(J)]
Impact assessment Appropriate air quality modeling to predict the effect of new source emissions on ambient air quality [Section 110(a)(2)(K)] Permit fees Provisions requiring major stationary sources to pay fees to cover reasonable costs for reviewing and acting on permit applications and for implementing and enforcing the permit conditions [Section 110(a)(2)(L)] Local government
participation
Provisions for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the plan [Sections 110(a)(2)(M) & 121]
648 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-22
The CAA requires that submitted plans include information on tracking plan implementation and milestone compliance. Requirements for these elements are described in CAA Section 182(g), and Chapter 4 addresses these issues.

The U.S. EPA also requires a public hearing on many of the required elements in SIP submittals before considering them officially submitted. The SCAQMD’s AQMP public process includes multiple public workshops and public hearings on all of the required elements prior to submittal. Chapter 11 describes the public process, participation and comprehensive outreach program for the 2016 AQMP.

State Law Requirements Addressed by the 2016 AQMP
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) (Health & Safety Code §§ 40910 et seq.) was signed into law on September 30, 1988, became effective on January 1, 1989, and was amended in 1992. Also known as the Sher Bill (AB 2595), the CCAA established a legal mandate to achieve health-based State air quality standards at the earliest practicable date. The Lewis Presley Act provides that the District’s plan must also contain deadlines for compliance with all State ambient air quality standards and the federally mandated primary ambient air quality standards (Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 40462(a)). Chapter 6 describes how the 2016 AQMP meets the State planning requirements under the CCAA, including plan effectiveness, emission reductions of 5 percent per year or adoption of all feasible measures, reducing population exposure to criteria pollutants, and ranking control measures by cost-effectiveness.

Format of This Document
This document is organized into eleven chapters, each addressing a specific topic. Each of the chapters is summarized below.

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” introduces the 2016 AQMP including purpose, historical air quality progress, and the approach for the 2016 AQMP.

Chapter 2, “Air Quality and Health Effects,” discusses the Basin’s current air quality in comparison with federal and State health-based air pollution standards.

Chapter 3, “Base Year and Future Emissions,” summarizes emissions inventories, estimates current emissions by source and pollutant, and projects future emissions with and without growth.

Chapter 4, “Control Strategy and Implementation,” presents the control strategy, specific measures, and implementation schedules to attain the air quality standards by the specified attainment dates.

Chapter 5, “Future Air Quality,” describes the modeling approach used in the AQMP and summarizes the Basin’s future air quality projections with and without the control strategy.

Chapter 6, “Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements,” discusses specific federal and State requirements as they pertain to the 2016 AQMP, including anti-backsliding requirements for revoked standards.
649 of 2287
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-23
Chapter 7, “Current and Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas,” describes the air quality status of the Coachella Valley, including emissions inventories, designations, and current and future air quality.

Chapter 8, “Looking Beyond Current Requirements,” assesses the Basin’s status with respect to the 2015 lowering of the 8-hour ozone standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb.

Chapter 9, “Air Toxic Control Strategy,” examines the ongoing efforts to reduce health risk from toxic air contaminants, co-benefits from reducing criteria pollutants, and potential future actions.

Chapter 10, “Climate and Energy,” provides a description of current and projected energy demand and supply issues in the Basin, and the relationship between air quality improvement and greenhouse gas mitigation goals.

Chapter 11, “Public Process and Participation,” describes the District’s public outreach effort associated with the development of the 2016 AQMP.

A “Glossary” is provided at the end of the document, presenting definitions of commonly used terms found in the 2016 AQMP.

Numerous technical appendices are included and are listed below:

Ch. 1 Introduction
Ch. 2 Air Quality and Health Effects
Ch. 3 Base Year and Future Emissions
Ch. 4 Control Strategy and Implementation
Ch. 5 Future Air Quality
Ch. 6 Federal and State Clean Air Act Requirements
Ch. 7 Current & Future AQ – Desert Nonattainment Areas
Ch. 8 Looking Beyond Current Requirements
Ch. 9 Air Toxic Control Strategy
Ch. 10 Climate and Energy
Ch. 11 Public Process and Participation
650 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
1-24
Appendix I (Health Effects) presents a summary of scientific findings on the health effects of ambient air pollutants, portions of which satisfy the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 40471(b).

Appendix II (Current Air Quality) contains a detailed summary of the air quality in 2014, along with prior year trends, in both the Basin and the Coachella Valley, as monitored by the SCAQMD.

Appendix III (Base and Future Year Emission Inventory) presents the 2012 base year emissions inventory and projected emission inventories of air pollutants in future attainment years for both annual average and summer planning inventories.

Appendix IV-A (SCAQMD’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures) describes SCAQMD staff’s proposed stationary and mobile source control measures to attain the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards.

Appendix IV-B (CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy) describes CARB staff’s proposed 2016 strategy to attain health-based federal air quality standards as part of the SIP.

Appendix IV-C (SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures) describes the SCAG’s Final 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and Transportation Control Measures to be included in the 2016 AQMP for the Basin.

Appendix V (Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations) provides the details of the regional modeling for the attainment demonstrations that illustrate that the proposed emission reductions will achieve the federal air quality standards by the regulatory attainment deadlines.

Appendix VI (Compliance with Other Clean Air Act Requirements) provides the details demonstrating that the 2016 AQMP complies with specific the federal and California Clean Air Act requirements. 651 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter
2 Air Quality and Health Effects
The air pollution problem in the Basin is the result of a combination of emissions, meteorological conditions and the mountainous terrain surrounding the region. High air pollution levels can have an adverse effect on public health and result in not meeting federal and State air quality standards.
652 of 2287
In This Chapter
 Introduction 2-1
Regional air quality and monitoring
 Ambient Air Quality Standards 2-2
Federal and State air quality standards
 Current Air Quality 2-14
Pollutant trends and comparisons to the standards
653 of 2287
 Air Quality Compared to Other
U.S. Metropolitan Areas 2-54
Air pollution in the region compared to other areas in
California and the U.S.
 Summary 2-59
Ozone and PM levels in 2015
654 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
Introduction
The South Coast Air Basin’s air pollution problems are a consequence of the combination of emissions from the nation’s second largest urban area, meteorological conditions adverse to the dispersion of those emissions, and mountainous terrain surrounding the Basin that traps pollutants as they are pushed inland with the sea breeze. The average wind speed for Los Angeles is the lowest of the nation’s 10 largest urban areas. In addition, the summertime daily maximum mixing heights1 in Southern California are the lowest, on average, due to strong temperature inversions in the lower atmosphere that effectively trap pollutants near the surface. Southern California also has abundant sunshine, which drives the photochemical reactions that form pollutants such as ozone (O3) and a significant portion of fine particulate mass (PM2.5, particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter).

In the Basin, high concentrations of ozone are normally recorded during the late spring and summer months, when more intense sunlight drives enhanced photochemical reactions. Elevated PM10 (particles less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 concentrations can occur in the Basin throughout the year, but occur most frequently in fall and winter. Although there are some changes in emissions by day-of-week and season, the observed variations in pollutant concentrations are primarily the result of seasonal differences in weather conditions.

Chapter 1 introduces the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or federal standards), as well as the District’s attainment status and progress toward meeting those standards. U.S. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants, including ozone, PM (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb).

In this chapter, ambient air quality as monitored by SCAQMD is summarized for the year 2015, along with prior year trends, in both the Basin and the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is primarily the Coachella Valley. The District’s recent air quality is compared to the NAAQS and to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS or State standards). Data presented indicate the current attainment or nonattainment status for the various NAAQS and CAAQS, showing the progress made to date and assisting the District in planning for future attainment. Maps are included to spatially compare the air quality throughout the Basin in 2015, for ozone and PM2.5, the main pollutants for which the U.S. EPA has designated the Basin to be a federal nonattainment area. Nationwide air quality data is also briefly summarized in this chapter, comparing air quality in the Basin to that of other major U.S. and California urban areas. Additional details on current air quality and trends and comparisons to the federal and State standards, including spatial and temporal variability and location-specific air monitoring data can be found in Appendix II: Current Air Quality.

The health effects due to exposure to criteria air pollutants are briefly discussed in this chapter. More detailed information on the health effects of air pollution can be found in Appendix I: Health Effects. In addition to the information presented in this chapter for the Coachella Valley, current air quality and trend 1 The maximum mixing height is an index of how well pollutants can be dispersed vertically in the atmosphere. 2-1

655 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
information specific to that planning area is also included in Chapter 7, along with the ozone attainment demonstration SIP for that area.

The Basin is designated non-attainment for current and former federal and State ozone standards, as well as the current PM2.5 standards. The Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is also designated a nonattainment area for the federal lead standard on the basis of source-specific monitoring at two locations as determined by U.S. EPA using 2007–2009 data. However, all stations in the Basin, including the near-source monitoring in Los Angeles County, have remained below the lead NAAQS for the 2012 through 2015 period. The District will request that U.S. EPA re-designate the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin as attainment for lead.

In June 2013, the U.S. EPA approved re-designation of the Basin as an attainment area for the 24-hour PM10 federal standard. The Basin also continues to be in attainment of the CO, NO2, and SO2 NAAQS.

The Coachella Valley remains a nonattainment area for both the ozone and the PM10 NAAQS. However, with recent data from a new monitoring station and consideration of high-wind exceptional events, a redesignation to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS should be possible in the near future. Further details on the federal and State standards are presented in this chapter by pollutant, along with the District’s current attainment status.

Ambient Air Quality Standards
Federal and State Standards
Ambient air quality standards have been set by both the federal government and the State of California for six air pollutants: Ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM (includes both PM10 and PM2.5), and lead. The State has also set a standard for sulfates (SO4
2-), which are a component of particulate matter, and a nuisance odor standard for hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The NAAQS and CAAQS for each of these pollutants and their effects on health and welfare are summarized in Table 2-1.

Two changes to the NAAQS have occurred since the 2012 AQMP. In a final rulemaking action on January 15, 2013, effective March 18, 2014, U.S. EPA strengthened the annual average PM2.5 standard from 15 to 12 µg/m3
. This rule also required near-roadway PM2.5 monitoring at two locationsin the Basin, which was implemented by the January 1, 2015 U.S. EPA deadline. Since this NAAQS rule was proposed in 2012, it is often referred to as the 2012 annual PM2.5 federal standard.

Most recently, on October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA finalized the new 2015 ozone standard at 0.070 ppm for an 8-hour average, retaining the same form as the previous 8-hour standards. The 2015 ozone NAAQS became effective as of December 28, 2015. Attainment/nonattainment designations are expected to be finalized for the new standard by October 1, 2017, likely based on 2014–2016 ozone measurement data.

It is expected that the Basin and the Coachella Valley, as well as much of California, will be designated nonattainment. SIP submittals to demonstrate attainment of the 2015 ozone standard will likely be due in the 2020–2021 time frame, with attainment dates between 2020 and 2037, depending on the severity of the ozone problem.

In this chapter and in Appendix II: Current Air Quality, air quality statistics are presented for the maximum concentrations measured at stations in each of the SCAQMD air basins, as well as for the number of days 2-2
656 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
exceeding State or federal standards. These metrics are instructive with regard to trends and control strategy effectiveness. However, it should be noted that an exceedance of the concentration level of a federal standard does not necessarily mean that the NAAQS was violated or that it would cause nonattainment. The form of the standard must also be considered. For example, for 24-hour PM2.5, the form of the standard is the annual 98th percentile measurement of all of the 24-hour PM2.5 daily samples at each station. For 8-hour ozone, the form of the standard is the annual fourth highest measured 8-hour average daily maximum concentration at each station.

For NAAQS attainment/nonattainment decisions, the most recent three years of data are considered (one year for CO and 24-hour SO2), along with the form of the standard, to calculate a design value for each station.
2 The overall design value for an air basin is the highest design value of all the stations in that basin. Table 2-2 shows the NAAQS, along with the design value and form of each federal standard. The California State air quality standards are values not to be exceeded, typically evaluated over a 3-year period, and the data is evaluated in terms of a State designation value, which allows for some statistical data outliers and exceptional events. Attainment deadlines for the State standards are ‘as soon as practicable.’
2 Note that for modeling attainment demonstrations, the U.S. EPA modeling guidance requires a 5-year weighted average for the design value instead of the 3-year.
2-3

657 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-1
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Key Health and Welfare Effects

AIR POLLUTANT

FEDERAL STANDARD
(NAAQS)
STATE

STANDARD
(CAAQS)
KEY HEALTH & WELFARE EFFECTS#
Concentration,
Averaging Time, Year of
NAAQS Review
Concentration,
Averaging Time
Ozone
(O3)

0.070 ppm, 8-Hour (2015)

0.075 ppm, 8-Hour (2008)

0.08 ppm, 8-Hour (1997)

0.12 ppm, 1-Hour (1979)

0.070 ppm, 8-Hour

0.09 ppm, 1-Hour
(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung injury in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Increased respiratory related hospital admissions and emergency room visits; (e) Vegetation damage; (f) Property damage
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
35 µg/m3, 24-Hour (2006)

12.0 µg/m3, Annual (2012)

15.0 µg/m3, Annual (1997)
12 µg/m3, Annual
(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Decline in pulmonary function or growth in children; (c) Increased risk of premature death; (d) Increased risk of lung cancer; (e) increased asthma-related hospital admissions; (f) increased school absences and lost work days; (g) possible link to reproductive effects; (h) visibility reduction Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10) 150 µg/m3, 24-Hour (1997) 50 µg/m3
, 24-Hour
20 µg/m3, Annual
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
35 ppm, 1-Hour (1971)
9 ppm, 8-Hour (1971)
20 ppm, 1-Hour

9.0 ppm, 8-Hour
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Possible impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
100 ppb, 1-Hour (2010)

0.053 ppm, Annual (1971)

0.18 ppm, 1-Hour

0.030 ppm, Annual
(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in children with asthma; (b) Increased airway responsiveness in asthmatics; (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 75 ppb, 1-Hour (2010) 0.25 ppm, 1-Hour

0.04 ppm, 24-Hour
Respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma
Lead
(Pb)

0.15 µg/m3,
rolling 3-month average (2008)

1.5 µg/m3, 30-day
average
(a) Learning disabilities; (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction; (c) cardiovascular effects, including coronary heart disease and hypertension
Sulfates-PM10
(SO4
2-) N/A 25 µg/m3, 24-Hour
(a) Decrease in lung function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Vegetation damage; (d) Degradation of visibility; (e) Property damage
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) N/A 0.03 ppm, 1-hour
Exposure to lower ambient concentrations above the standard may result in objectionable odor and may be accompanied by
symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, nasal irritation, cough, and shortness of breath
ppm – parts per million by volume; ppb – parts per billion by volume (0.01 ppm = 10 ppb) Standards in bold are the current, most stringent standards; there may be continuing obligations for former standards State standards are “not-to-exceed” values based on State designation value calculations Federal standards follow the 3-year design value form of the NAAQS # List of health and welfare effects is not comprehensive; detailed health effects information can be found in Appendix I: Health Effects or in the U.S.

EPA NAAQS documentation at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ 2-4
658 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Design Value Requirements Pollutant Averaging Time** NAAQS
Level Design Value Form of NAAQS*
Ozone
(O3)
1-Hour (1979) [revoked 2005] 0.12 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year averaged over 3 years
8-Hour (2015) 0.070 ppm
Annual fourth highest 8-hour average concentration,
averaged over 3 years 8-Hour(2008) [revised 2015] 0.075 ppm 8-Hour(1997) [revoked 2015] 0.08 ppm
Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour (2006) 35 µg/m3 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of daily 24-hour concentration
Annual (2012) 12.0 µg/m3
Annual average concentration, averaged over 3 years
(annual averages based on average of 4 quarters) Annual (1997) [revised 2012] 15.0 µg/m3 Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24-Hour (1987) 150 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year averaged over 3 years
Annual (1987) [revoked 2006] 50 µg/m3 Annual average concentration, averaged over 3 years Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-Hour (1971) 35 ppm
Not to be exceeded more than once a year
8-Hour (1971) 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
1-Hour (2010) 100 ppb 3-year avg. of the annual 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations (rounded)
Annual (1971) 0.053 ppm Annual avg. concentration, averaged over 3 years Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
1-Hour (2010) 75 ppb 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years
24-Hour (1971)# 0.14 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year Annual (1971)# 0.03 ppm Annual arithmetic average
Lead (Pb) 3-Month Rolling Average (2008)## 0.15 µg/m3 Highest rolling 3-month average of the 3 years Bold text denotes the current and most stringent NAAQS
* The NAAQS is attained when the design value (form of concentration listed) is equal to or less than the level of the NAAQS; for pollutants with the design values based on “exceedances” (1-hour ozone, 24-hour PM10, CO, and 24-hour SO2), the NAAQS is attained when the concentration associated with the design value is less than or equal to the standard level:
• For 1-hour ozone and 24-hour PM10, the NAAQS is attained when the fourth highest daily concentrations of the 3-year period is less than or equal to the standard level
• For CO and 24-hour SO2, the standard is attained when the second highest daily concentration of the most recent year is equal to or less than the standard level ** Year of U.S. EPA NAAQS update review shown in parenthesis and revoked or revised status in brackets; for revoked or revised NAAQS, areas may have continuing obligations until that standard is attained: for 1-hour ozone, the Basin has continuing obligations under the former 1979 standard; for 8-hour ozone, the NAAQS was lowered from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm, but the previous 8-hour ozone NAAQS and most related implementation rules remain in place until that standard is attained # Annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS are expected to be revoked 12/2021, one year from final attainment designations for the (2010) 1-hour SO2 NAAQS expected 12/2020
## 3-month rolling averages of the first year (of the three year period) include November and December monthly averages of the prior year; the 3-month average is based on the average of “monthly” averages
2-5
659 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Under the Exceptional Events Rule,3 U.S. EPA allows certain air quality data to not be considered for NAAQS attainment status when that data is influenced by exceptional events that meet strict evidence requirements, such as high winds, wildfires, volcanoes, or some cultural events (such as Independence Day or New Year’s fireworks). For a few PM measurements in the Basin and the Coachella Valley in 2012 through 2015, the District applied the U.S. EPA Exceptional Events Rule to flag some PM10 and PM2.5 data due to high-wind natural events, wildfires, and fireworks on Independence Day and New Year’s Eve.

All of the exceptional event flags through 2015 have been submitted with the affected data to U.S. EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) database. The preparation of the District’s documentation for those events that effect regulatory decisions is under way and U.S. EPA concurrence will be requested. The process to achieve PM10 re-designation for the Coachella Valley to attainment status will likely depend upon U.S EPA’s concurrence with the exceptional event flags and the appropriate treatment of high-wind natural events that are uncontrollable in spite of stringent control measures on anthropogenic emissions.

Attainment Status
Figure 2-1 shows the South Coast and Coachella Valley 3-year design values (2013–2015) for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, as a percentage of the corresponding current and former federal standards. The current status of NAAQS attainment for all the criteria pollutants is presented in Table 2-3 for the Basin and in Table 2-4 for the Riverside County portion of the SSAB (Coachella Valley). 3 The U.S. EPA Exceptional Events Rule, Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events, became effective May 21, 2007. The previous U.S. EPA Natural Events Policy for Particulate Matter was issued May 30, 1996. On September 16, 2016, U.S. EPA promulgated revisions to the Exceptional Event Rule. 2-6

660 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
FIGURE 2-1
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AND COACHELLA VALLEY 2013–2015 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUES (PERCENTAGE OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL STANDARDS, BY CRITERIA POLLUTANT; PM10 DATA FLAGGED FOR EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS EXCLUDED BUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND U.S. EPA CONCURRENCE STILL NEEDED; PM10 DATA SHOWN USES COMBINED FEDERAL REFERENCE METHOD AND FEDERAL EQUIVALENT DATA; DARKER COLORS INDICATE

THE MOST STRINGENT STANDARD)
146%
136%
120%
108%
116% 117%
94%
87%
104%
126%
117%
104%
83%
48%
66%
53%
100%
74%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
2015
8-Hour
Ozone
2008
8-Hour
Ozone
(Revised)
1997
8-Hour
Ozone
(Revoked)
1979
1-Hour
Ozone
(Revoked)
2006
24-Hour
PM2.5
2012
Annual
PM2.5
1997
Annual
PM2.5
(Revised)
1987
24-Hour
PM10
1987
Annual
PM10
(Revoked)
South Coast Air Basin Coachella Valley
Design Value, as Percent of Standard
Federal Standard
2-7
661 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-3
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Attainment Status - South Coast Air Basin Criteria
Pollutant Averaging Time Designationa AttainmentDateb
Ozone (O3)
(1979) 1-Hour (0.12 ppm)c Nonattainment (“extreme”) 2/26/2023 (revised deadline)
(2015) 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Pending – Expect Nonattainment (“extreme”) Pending (beyond 2032)
(2008) 8-Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (“extreme”) 7/20/2032 (1997) 8-Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (“extreme”) 6/15/2024 PM2.5e
(2006) 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Nonattainment (“serious”) 12/31/2019 (2012) Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment (“moderate”) 12/31/2021 (1997) Annual (15.0 µg/m3) Attainment (final determination pending) 4/5/2015 (attained 2013)
PM10f (1987) 24-hour (150 µg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance) 7/26/2013 (attained) Lead (Pb)g (2008) 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Nonattainment (Partial)
(Attainment determination to be requested) 12/31/2015
CO (1971) 1-Hour (35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) (1971) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) NO2
h (2010) 1-Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) SO2
i
(2010) 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending
(expect Unclassifiable/Attainment) N/A (attained)
(1971) 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
(1971) Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained) a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for an attainment demonstration
c) The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05 ; however, the Basin has not attained this standard and therefore has some continuing obligations with respect to the revoked standard; original attainment date was 11/15/2010; the revised attainment date is 2/6/23 d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the revoked 1997 and revised 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained e) The attainment deadline for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 12/31/15 for the former “moderate” classification; U.S.EPA approved reclassification to “serious,” effective 2/12/16 with an attainment deadline of 12/31/2019; the 2012 (proposal year) annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3; new annual designations were final 1/15/15, effective 4/15/15; on July 25, 2016 U.S. EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3) and 24-hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016 f) The annual PM10 NAAQS was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006; the Basin’s Attainment Redesignation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was approved by U.S. EPA on 6/26/13, effective 7/26/13 g) Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of the Basin only for near-source monitors; expect to remain in attainment based on current monitoring data; attainment re-designation request pending h) New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10, with attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained i) The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour NAAQS; final area designations expected by 12/31/20 due to new source-specific monitoring requirements; Basin expected to be in attainment due to ongoing clean data 2-8
662 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-4
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Attainment Status Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin
Criteria
Pollutant
Averaging Time Designationa Attainment
Dateb
Ozone (O3)
(1979) 1-Hour (0.12 ppm)c Attainment 11/15/2007
(attained 12/31/2013)
(2015) 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Pending – Expect
Nonattainment (Severe) Pending
(2008) 8-Hour (0.075 ppm)d Nonattainment (Severe-15) 7/20/2027 (1997) 8-Hour (0.08 ppm)d Nonattainment (Severe-15) 6/15/2019 PM2.5e
(2006) 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (2012) Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1997) Annual (15.0 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) PM10f (1987) 24-hour (150 µg/m3
) Nonattainment (“serious”) 12/31/2006
Lead (Pb) (2008) 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/
Attainment
CO
(1971) 1-Hour (35 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) 8-Hour (9 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) NO2
g
(2010) 1-Hour (100 ppb) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) (1971) Annual (0.053 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained) SO2
h
(2010) 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending N/A
(1971) 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
(1971) Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/ Attainment
a) U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or Unclassifiable b) A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is typically required for an attainment demonstration
c) The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective 6/15/05; the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area, including the Coachella Valley, had not timely attained this standard by the 11/15/07 “severe-17” deadline, based on 2005-2007 data; on 8/25/14, U.S. EPA proposed a clean data finding based on 2011–2013 data and a determination of attainment for the former 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area; this rule was finalized by U.S. EPA on 4/15/15, effective 5/15/15, that included preliminary 2014 data
d) The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075 ppm) was revised to 0.070 ppm, effective 12/28/15 with classifications and implementation goals to be finalized by 10/1/17; the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.08 ppm) was revoked in the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, effective 4/6/15; there are continuing obligations under the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS until they are attained e) The annual PM2.5 standard was revised on 1/15/13, effective 3/18/13, from 15 to 12 µg/m3 f) The annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective 12/18/06; the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS attainment deadline was 12/31/2006; the Coachella Valley Attainment Re-designation Request and PM10 Maintenance Plan was postponed by U.S. EPA pending additional monitoring and analysis in the southeastern Coachella Valley
g) New 1-hour NO2 NAAQS became effective 8/2/10; attainment designations 1/20/12; annual NO2 NAAQS retained h) The 1971 Annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS were revoked, effective 8/23/10; however, these 1971 standards will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard; final area designations expected by 12/31/2020 with SSAB expected to be designated Unclassifiable/Attainment 2-9
663 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
The current status of CAAQS attainment for the pollutants with State standards is presented in Table 2-5 for the Basin and the Riverside County portion of the SSAB (Coachella Valley).

TABLE 2-5
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley portion of Salton Sea Air Basin Pollutant Averaging Time
and Levelb
Designationa
South Coast
Air Basin Coachella Valley
Ozone (O3) 1-Hour (0.09 ppm)c Nonattainment Nonattainment 8-Hour (0.070 ppm)d Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Annual (12.0 µg/m3
) Nonattainment Attainment
PM10 24-Hour (50 µg/m3
) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Annual (20 µg/m3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average
(1.5 µg/m3)
Attainment Attainment
CO 1-Hour (20 ppm) Attainment Attainment
8-Hour (9.0 ppm) Attainment Attainment
NO2 1-Hour (0.18 ppm) Attainment Attainment
Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment Attainment
SO2 1-Hour (0.25 ppm) Attainment Attainment
24-Hour (0.04 ppm) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates 24-Hour (25 µg/m3
) Attainment Attainment
H2Sc 1-Hour (0.03 ppm) Unclassified Unclassified c)
a) CA State designations shown were updated by CARB in 2016, based on the 2013–2015 3-year period; stated designations are based on a 3-year data period after consideration of outliers and exceptional events; Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/statedesig.htm#current b) CA State standards, or CAAQS, for ozone, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded; lead, sulfates, and H2S standards are values not to be equaled or exceeded; CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations
c) SCAQMD began monitoring H2S in the southeastern Coachella Valley in November 2013 due to odor events related to the Salton Sea; three full years of data are not yet available for a State designation, but nonattainment is anticipated for the H2S CAAQS in at least part of the Coachella Valley
The 1979 federal 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked by the U.S. EPA and replaced by the 8- hour average ozone standard (0.08 ppm), effective June 15, 2005. However, the Basin and the former Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area (which included the Coachella Valley) had not attained the 1-hour federal ozone NAAQS by the attainment dates in 2010 and 2007, respectively, and, therefore, had continuing obligations under the former standard. On August 25, 2014, U.S. EPA 2-10
664 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
proposed a clean data determination based on 2011-2013 data and a determination of attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Southeast Desert nonattainment area. This rule was finalized, with the inclusion of the preliminary 2014 ozone data, by U.S. EPA on April 15, 2015, effective May 15, 2015. The Basin has not yet attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was subsequently strengthened from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, effective May 27, 2008. The 1997 8-hour ozone standard was revoked in implementation rules for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective April 6, 2015. On October 1, 2015, U.S. EPA again strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm, effective December 28, 2015, retaining the same form as the previous 1997 and 2008 standards. Attainment designations for the new 2015 standard are expected to be finalized by late 2017, with SIP attainment demonstrations likely due in 2020 or 2021. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is a primary focus of this AQMP, as it is the SIP submittal to demonstrate future attainment of the 2008 standard. While the statistics presented in this chapter, and in Appendix II: Current Air Quality, primarily refer to the current (2015) and former (2008) 8-hour ozone standards, the former 1997 8-hour and 1979 1-hour ozone standards will also be presented, to show the progress toward those standards and for historical comparison.

In 2015, one or more stations in the Basin exceeded the most current federal standards on a total of 146 days (40 percent of the year), including: 8-hour ozone (113 days over the 2015 ozone NAAQS), 24-hour PM2.5 (30 days, including near-road sites; 25 days for ambient sites only), PM10 (2 days), and NO2 (1 day).

Despite substantial improvement in air quality over the past few decades, some air monitoring stations in the Basin still exceed the NAAQS for ozone more frequently than any other areas in the United States.

Seven of the top 10 stations in the nation most frequently exceeding the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2015 were located within the Basin, including stations in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Regarding the former ozone NAAQS,
4 81 days exceeded the revised 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, 47 days exceeded the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and 10 days exceeded the revoked 1- hour ozone NAAQS at one or more stations in the Basin in 2015. Table 2-6 summarizes the number of days exceeding current and former federal and State 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard levels by county in the Basin and the Coachella Valley in 2015.
4 While the former federal 8-hour and 1-hour ozone NAAQS have been revised or revoked by U.S. EPA, nonattainment areas, including the Basin, still have continuing obligations under each standard until it is attained. 2-11

665 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-6
2015 Number of Days Exceeding Current and Former Ozone Standards at the Peak Station by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
# Days >
Current
(2015)
8-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.070 ppm)
Area of Max Current
Federal Standard
Exceedances
2015
# Days >
Former
(2008)
8-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.075 ppm)
2015
# Days >
Former
(1997)
8-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.08 ppm)
2015
# Days >
Former
(1979)
1-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.12 ppm)
2015
# Days >
Current
8-Hour
State
Ozone
Standard
(0.07 ppm)
2015
# Days >
Current
1-Hour
State
Ozone
Standard
(0.09 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 74 Santa Clarita Valley 54 25 4 80 52
Orange 12 Saddleback Valley 4 0 0 14 5
Riverside 76 Metropolitan Riverside
County 51 29 2 81 43
San Bernardino 102 Central San
Bernardino Mountains 75 42 8 102 65
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 58 Coachella Valley
(Palm Springs) 30 5 0 54 3
Bold text denotes the peak value
The 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS became effective at the end of 2015; the 2008 ozone NAAQS was still in effect during the 2014 and 2015 ozone seasons; 2014–2016 data will likely be evaluated by U.S. EPA for 2015 ozone NAAQS attainment determinations; although the 2015 8-hour NAAQS and the 8-hour CAAQS are both at an equivalent level, the rounding conventions differ
PM2.5 levels in the Basin have improved significantly in recent years. By 2013 and again in 2014 and 2015, there were no stations measuring PM2.5 in the Basin violating the former 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3
) for the 3-year design value period with the filter-based federal reference method (FRM).5
On July 25, 2016 U.S. EPA finalized a determination that the Basin attained the 1997 annual (15.0 µg/m3
) and 24-hour PM2.5 (65 µg/m3) NAAQS, effective August 24, 2016. Of the 17 FRM PM2.5 monitors at ambient stations in the Basin and the Coachella Valley for the 2013–2015 period, five stations had design values over the current 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (12.0 µg/m3 ), including: Mira Loma (Basin
maximum at 14.1 µg/m3
), Rubidoux, Fontana, Ontario (2013 and 2014 data only, prior to closing), Central Los Angeles, and Compton. The new near-road PM2.5 measurements, now fully implemented at two 5 SCAQMD also employs continuous monitors at several stations in the Basin to provide real-time data for the public and to support daily air quality forecasting. U.S. EPA has granted SCAQMD a waiver from using these continuous monitors for regulatory/attainment determination purposes, since they do not meet the accuracy requirements to be considered federal equivalent method (FEM) measurements. 2-12

666 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
stations, will be evaluated for NAAQS compliance once sufficient data has been collected. These sourcespecific measurements are often higher than the nearest ambient measurements and may affect the Basin-wide design value. The Coachella Valley is in attainment of both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

In 2015, 14 of the stations in the Basin with FRM PM2.5 monitors had one or more PM2.5 daily average concentrations exceeding the level of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35.0 µg/m3 ), with a total of 25
days over that standard in the Basin (30 days with the new near-road stations included). However, in the 2013–2015 period, only two stations (in Metropolitan Riverside County at Mira Loma and Rubidoux), had design values over the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.6
While it was previously anticipated that the Basin
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be attained by 2015, this did not occur, based on the data for 2013 through 2015. The higher number of days exceeding the 24-hour NAAQS, over what was expected based on the current control strategy, is largely attributed to the severe drought conditions in California in the past three years. The deficit of normal storm systems from late fall through the winter and early spring allowed for more stagnant conditions in the Basin and multi-day buildups of higher PM2.5 concentrations.

This was caused by the lack of storm-related dispersion and rain-out of PM and its precursors.

The Basin is in attainment of the current PM10 24-hour NAAQS. The Coachella Valley monitored data also shows that it will meet the PM10 NAAQS, pending SCAQMD documentation submittal and subsequent U.S. EPA approval of days flagged for high-wind exceptional events. However, U.S. EPA has requested that SCAQMD conduct additional monitoring in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley before a re-designation can be considered. This station has been in operation since 2013 in the community of Mecca, so the District intends to propose that a re-designation decision can be based on the 2014–2016 or 2015–2017 period when the data is finalized and exceptional event exclusions can be addressed.

The District continues to be in attainment of the NAAQS for SO2, CO, and NO2. While the concentration level of the current 1-hour NO2 federal standard (100 ppb) was exceeded in the Basin at one station on one day in 2015 (in the South Los Angeles County Coastal Area at the Long Beach – Hudson station), the NAAQS NO2 design value7 has not been exceeded. Therefore, the Basin remains in attainment of the NO2 NAAQS. The near-road NO2 and CO measurements, now completely phased in, will also be evaluated for NAAQS compliance once sufficient data has been collected. These source-specific NO2 and CO measurements are often higher than the nearest ambient measurements. However, the longest running NO2 near-road station, on I-5 in Anaheim, did not exceed the level of the NAAQS since the measurements began on January 1, 2014. Likewise, a shorter period of data from the other stations has also not exceeded the level of the NO2 NAAQS to date. Similarly, the near-road CO measurements have not exceeded the level of the CO NAAQS to date.

U.S. EPA designated the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin (excluding the San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands and the Antelope Valley) as nonattainment for the revised (2008) federal lead standard (0.15 µg/m3
, rolling 3-month average). This designation was based on two source-specific monitors in Vernon and in the City of Industry exceeding the 2008 standard over the 2007–2009 period. For the 6 The 24-hour PM2.5 design value is based on the annual 98th percentile concentration for each station averaged over the 3-year period; for stations that monitor every day, this is typically the eighth highest concentration. 7 The 1-hour NO2 design value is the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 1-hour maximums. 2-13

667 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
most recent two design value periods, 2012–2014 and 2013–2015, no stations in Los Angeles County showed violations of the federal lead standard, with a maximum 3-month rolling average 2013–2015 design value of 0.08 µg/m3 (at the highest source-specific monitor at the beginning of 2013). A request to U.S. EPA to re-designate Los Angeles County to attainment of the lead NAAQS is being prepared. The remainder of the Basin outside the Los Angeles County nonattainment area, as well as the Coachella Valley, remain in attainment of the 2008 lead standard, including both ambient monitors and sourceoriented monitors.

Current Air Quality
In 2015, ozone, PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 peak values exceeded federal standard concentration levels at one or more of the routine monitoring stations in the Basin, while ozone and PM10 exceeded those standard levels in the Coachella Valley. However, an exceedance of the concentration level does not necessarily mean a violation of the NAAQS, because the design value form of the standard must also be considered for attainment determination. For example, the 2015 1-hour maximum NO2 concentration in the Basin was 101 ppb at the Long Beach – Hudson station, but the Basin did not violate the federal NO2 NAAQS, based on the form of the standard, because the station’s 98th percentile daily maximum hourly concentration was not over the federal standard of 100 ppb for the 2013–2015 period.

At this time, the only pollutants in the Basin with design values in violation of the respective NAAQS are ozone, (all current and former federal standards) and PM2.5 (current annual and 24-hour federal standards). In the Coachella Valley, only ozone has design values in violation of the NAAQS for the current and former 8-hour federal ozone standards. The Coachella Valley is expected to be in attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, after accounting for days with high-wind natural events through the U.S.

EPA Exceptional Event Rule.

Figure 2-2 shows the trend of the Basin maximum 3-year design value concentrations for ozone (1-hour and 8-hour) and PM2.5 (24-hour and annual) since 1995, as percentages of the corresponding current federal standards (note that PM2.5 monitoring began in 1999 so the first 3-year design value was in 2001).

Although there is some year-to-year variability, these pollutants show significant improvement over the years, with PM2.5 showing the most dramatic decreases.
2-14
668 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
FIGURE 2-2
TRENDS OF SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN MAXIMUM 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUES FOR OZONE (2015 8-HOUR, 2008 8-HOUR, AND 1979 1-HOUR NAAQS) AND PM2.5 (24-HOUR AND ANNUAL), 1995–2015 (AS PERCENTAGES OF CURRENT FEDERAL STANDARDS)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Design Value, as Percent of Standard
O3 (8-Hour, 2015) O3 (8-Hour, 2008) O3 (1-Hour, 1979)
24-Hour PM2.5 PM2.5 (Annual)
Federal Standard
2-15
669 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Monitoring Network Status
There have been some changes to the SCAQMD ambient air monitoring network since the previous AQMP, which was finalized in 2012 and summarized air quality through 2011. A new special-purpose monitoring station was added, starting in January 2013, in the southeastern Coachella Valley in the City of Mecca to measure PM10 and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). A second H2S monitor was added on TorresMartinez tribal property to measure naturally occurring odors from the Salton Sea close to the shoreline.

Long-term monitoring stations at North Long Beach and Burbank had to be closed due to lease decisions beyond the District’s control; replacements for these two stations are being sought at this time. Filterbased PM2.5 measurements have continued at North Long Beach until a suitable replacement station can be obtained. The PM10 and PM2.5 monitors at the Ontario Fire Station were also removed in 2014, due to lack of space at the Ontario site. The Riverside-Magnolia station was also closed at the end of 2014, with those measurements (PM2.5, lead, CO and NO2) consolidated at the nearby Riverside-Rubidoux station in 2015. Replacements for the Ontario Fire Station and Riverside-Magnolia air monitoring stations are not required and the measurements from these locations are well-represented by other SCAQMD stations.

To implement recent U.S. EPA requirements to monitor NO2, CO, and PM2.5 near major roadways in large urban areas, four new near-road monitoring stations were installed. The NO2 measurements began on January 1, 2014 at a near-road site at Vernon Street in Anaheim, Orange County, adjacent to Interstate Highway 5. This was followed by a new near-road site near Etiwanda Avenue in San Bernardino County next to Interstate Highway 10 in July 2014. CO measurements began at both the I-5 and I-10 near-road sites in December 2014. These two sites represent high traffic volume routes. Near-road NO2 and PM2.5 measurements began in 2015 next to California Highway 60, west of Vineyard Avenue near the San Bernardino/Riverside County border, and next to Interstate Highway 710, at Long Beach Blvd. in Los Angeles County. These two sites represent high traffic volumes with a high fraction of diesel truck traffic.

The near-road monitoring is source-specific, that is, the pollutant measurements are directly impacted by the close proximity of the traffic-related emissions from the roadways. As a result, higher measured air pollutant concentrations are generally expected at the near-road sites than those found further away from the freeways. The near-road measurements provide representative pollutant exposure information for people who live, work, or go to school adjacent to freeways or who spend significant time traveling on the busiest southern California roadways. Once sufficient near-road data is collected for a full 3-year design value8 calculation, it can be included in analyses for attainment of the NAAQS. 8 A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given area relative to the level and form of the NAAQS. For most criteria pollutants, the design value is a 3-year average and takes into account the form of the short-term standard (e.g., 98th percentile, fourth high value, etc.). Design values can also be calculated for standards that are exceedance-based (e.g., 1-hour ozone and 24-hour PM10) so that they can be expressed as a concentration instead of an exceedance count, in order to allow a direct comparison to the level of the standard.

Note that the modeling design values used for the AQMP attainment demonstration are based on a 5-year period, weighted toward the center year, as specified in U.S. EPA modeling guidelines. 2-16

670 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
Ozone (O3)
Health Effects, Ozone
The adverse effects of ozone air pollution exposure on health have been studied for many years, as documented by a significant body of peer-reviewed scientific research, including studies conducted in Southern California. The 2013 U.S. EPA document, Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, 9 describes these health effects and discusses the state of the scientific knowledge and research. A summary of health effects information and additional references can also be found in Appendix I: Health Effects.

Individuals working outdoors, children (including teenagers), older adults, people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma, and individuals with certain nutritional deficiencies are considered to be the subgroups most susceptible to ozone effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are associated with increased school absences and daily hospital admission rates, as well as increased mortality. An increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple sports and live in high-ozone communities.

Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of respiratory symptoms.

Although lung volume and airway resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes.

Air Quality, Ozone
In 2015, SCAQMD routinely monitored ambient ozone at 29 locations in the Basin and the Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB. The 2015 Basin maximum ozone concentrations continued to exceed federal standards by wide margins, although significant improvement has been achieved through the years.

Figure 2-3 shows the trend from 1976 through 2015 of the annual number of Basin days exceeding various metrics for ozone. These metrics include the 1-hour Stage 110 level (0.20 ppm), the 1-hour Health Advisory level (0.15 ppm), the former (1979) 1-hour NAAQS (0.12 ppm), the former (1997 and 2008) 8- hour NAAQS (0.08 and 0.075 ppm), and the new 2015 8-hour NAAQS (0.070 ppm). All the ozone trends 9 U.S. EPA. (2013). Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/076F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492. 10 While the 1-hour ozone episode levels and the related 1-hour ozone health warnings still exist, they are essentially replaced by the more protective health warnings associated with the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

The 1-hour ozone episode warning levels include the State Health Advisory (0.15 ppm), Stage 1 (0.20 ppm), Stage 2 (0.35 ppm), and Stage 3 (0.50 ppm). The State 1-hour ozone Health Advisory was last exceeded in the Basin in 2013. The Basin’s last 1-hour ozone Stage 1 episode occurred in 2003. The last 1-hour ozone Stage 2 episode occurred in 1988 and the last Stage 3 episode occurred in 1974. 2-17

671 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
show significant improvements achieved through the period. However, they also show the need for continued efforts in order to meet all the 8-hour ozone standards and the 1979 1-hour standard.

FIGURE 2-3
TREND OF NUMBER OF BASIN DAYS EXCEEDING CURRENT AND FORMER OZONE NAAQS AND 1-HOUR OZONE EPISODE LEVELS (HEALTH ADVISORY AND STAGE-1), 1976 THROUGH 2015 All counties in the Basin, as well as the Coachella Valley, exceeded the level of the new 2015 (0.070 ppm) and the former 2008 (0.075 ppm) and 1997 (0.08 ppm) 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2015. While not all stations had days exceeding the previous 8-hour standards, all monitoring stations had at least one day over the 2015 federal standard, except the coastal station near the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach in South Coastal Los Angeles County (Elisabeth Hudson Elementary School station).

On one or more days in the Basin, the 2015 ozone federal standard was exceeded on a total of 113 days exceeded in 2015 (81 days over the 2008 standard and 47 days over the 1997 standard). 2015 had the fewest days exceeding the 8-hour ozone standards than were recorded in any previous year since these measurements began. The 8-hour State ozone standard (0.070 ppm, although the rounding convention differs from federal standard) was exceeded in the Basin on 115 days in 2015. The Coachella Valley exceeded the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on 47 days (26 days for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, five days for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 51 days for the State 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The station with the highest 1-Hour Stage 1 Episode
1-Hour Health Advisory
1979 1-Hour NAAQS
1997 8-Hour NAAQS
2008 8-Hour NAAQS
2015 8-Hour NAAQS
0 25
50 75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
197619781980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Basin Days Exceeding
YEAR
2-18
672 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
number of days in 2015 over the 2015, 2008, and 1997 8-hour federal ozone standards (86, 61, and 30 days, respectively) was in the Central San Bernardino Mountains (Crestline-Lake Gregory). The 2015 maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of 0.127 ppm was also measured at the Central San Bernardino Mountains station.

When compared to the design value form of the federal standard, all four of the Basin’s counties were above the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2013–2015 design values. Three of the Basin’s four counties (all but Orange County) were above both the 2008 and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2013- 2015 design values. The Basin’s highest 2013–2015 8-hour ozone design value (0.102 ppm, measured in the Central San Bernardino Mountains at Crestline-Lake Gregory) was 146 percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (136 percent of the 2008 NAAQS and 121 percent of the 1997 NAAQS). This was the same as the 2014 peak Basin design value and they were the lowest maximum 8-hour ozone design values in the Basin since ozone measurements began. Table 2-7 shows the 2015 maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations and design values by air basin and county, compared to current and former federal, and current State standards.

TABLE 2-7
2015 Maximum 8-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations and Design Values by Basin and County Basin/
County
2015
Maximum
8-Hour
Ozone
Average
(ppm)
2013–2015
8-Hour
Ozone
Design
Value
(ppm)
Percent of
Current
(2015)
8-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.070 ppm)
Percent of
Former
(2008)
8-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.075 ppm)
Percent of
Former
(1997)
8-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.08 ppm)
Area of Design Value
Maximum
2013–2015
8-Hour
Ozone
State
Designation
Value#
(ppm)
Percent of
State
8-hour
Ozone
Standard
(0.070 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 0.108 0.094 134 125 112 Santa Clarita Valley 0.109 156 Orange 0.088 0.075 107 100* 89 Saddleback Valley 0.082 117 Riverside 0.105 0.093 133 124 111 Metropolitan Riverside County

0.106 151
San
Bernardino 0.127 0.102 146 136 121
Central San Bernardino
Mountains 0.114 163
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 0.092 0.088 126 117 105 Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) 0.093 133
Bold text denotes the peak value
* 100 percent of the NAAQS is not violating that standard # The State 8-Hour Designation Value is the highest State 8-hour ozone average, rounded to three decimal places, during the last 3 years (State designation value source:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php)
2-19
673 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
All monitored locations measured maximum 1-hour average ozone concentrations well below the Stage 1 episode level (0.20 ppm, 1-hour) and below the ozone health advisory level (0.15 ppm, 1-hour) in 2015.

Except for one day in 2003 (at a special-purpose monitor in the San Bernardino Mountains), the Stage 1 ozone episode level has not been exceeded in the Basin since 1998.

The Basin exceeded the level of the revoked (1979) 1-hour federal ozone standard (0.12 ppm) on 10 days in 2015, with exceedances in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; Orange County did not exceed the 1979 standard. The most exceedances of the former 1-hour standard in 2015 (6 days) occurred in the Central San Bernardino Valley at the San Bernardino air monitoring station. The 2015 peak 1-hour ozone concentration in the Basin was 0.144 ppm, measured in the Central San Bernardino Mountains (Crestline-Lake Gregory air monitoring station). This value was slightly higher than the 2014 peak of 0.141 ppm, which was the Basin’s lowest annual peak 1-hour concentration since ozone measurements started in the mid-1950s. In the Coachella Valley, 1-hour ozone concentrations did not exceed the revoked 1-hour federal standard in 2015 and the peak 1-hour concentration of 0.102 ppm was the lowest annual peak ever monitored in that area. The State 1-hour ozone standard (0.09 ppm) was exceeded in the Basin on 71 days and in the Coachella Valley on 3 days.

The calculated peak 2013–2015 1-hour ozone design value11 (0.130 ppm in the Central San Bernardino Mountains at the Crestline-Lake Gregory air monitoring station) was 104 percent of the former 1-hour NAAQS. The Coachella Valley design value did not exceed the former 1-hour federal ozone standard in 2015 and has remained in attainment of the former NAAQS since 2008. Table 2-8 shows the 2015 maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations and calculated design values by air basin and county, compared to the former federal and current State standards.
11 The former 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS allows for one exceedance per year on average when averaged over three years. The calculated design value is the fourth highest value over a 3-year period, allowing the design value to be expressed in terms of a concentration. When shown in parts-per-million to 3 decimal places the design value is compared to 0.125 ppm, which would exceed the NAAQS. 2-20

674 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-8
2015 Maximum 1-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations and Design Values by Basin and County Basin/
County
2015
Maximum
1-Hour
Ozone
Average
(ppm)
2013–2015
1-Hour
Ozone
Design Value
(ppm)
Percent of
Former
(1979)
1-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(0.125 ppm)
Area of Design Value Max
2013–2015
1-Hour
Ozone
State
Designation
Value#
(ppm)
Percent of
State
1-Hour
Ozone
Standard
(0.09 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 0.136 0.127 102 East San Gabriel Valley 0.13 144 Orange 0.103 0.102 82
North Orange County
& Saddleback Valley

0.10 111
Riverside 0.132 0.121 97 Metropolitan Riverside County 0.13 144 San
Bernardino 0.144 0.130 104 Central San Bernardino Mountains 0.13 144 Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 0.102 0.104 83 Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) 0.11 122 Bold text denotes the peak value
# The State 1-Hour Designation Value is the highest hourly ozone measurement during the last 3 years, rounded to two decimal places. In practice, the designation value is the highest measured concentration in the 3-year period that remains, after excluding measurements identified as affected by highly irregular or infrequent events (State designation value source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php) The number of days exceeding the current and former ozone standards in the Basin varies widely by area.

Figures 2-4 through 2-6 map the number of days in 2015 exceeding the new 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the former 2008 and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in different areas of the Basin. The number of exceedances of the federal 8-hour ozone standards was lowest in the coastal areas, due in large part to the prevailing sea breeze which transports emissions inland before photochemistry produces high ozone concentrations. The concentrations increase downwind towards the Riverside County valleys and the San Bernardino County valleys and adjacent mountain areas, as well as the area around Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County. The Central San Bernardino Mountains area recorded the greatest number of exceedances of the current and former 8-hour federal standards (86 days for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 61 days for the 2008 NAAQS, and 30 days for the 1997 NAAQS). 2-21
675 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 2-4
NUMBER OF DAYS IN 2015 EXCEEDING THE 2015 8-HOUR OZONE FEDERAL STANDARD (8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE > 0.070 PPM)
FIGURE 2-5
NUMBER OF DAYS IN 2015 EXCEEDING THE REVISED 2008 8-HOUR OZONE FEDERAL STANDARD (8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE > 0.075 PPM)
2-22
676 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
FIGURE 2-6
NUMBER OF DAYS IN 2015 EXCEEDING THE REVOKED 1997 8-HOUR OZONE FEDERAL STANDARD (8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE > 0.08 PPM)
Figure 2-7 maps the number of days in 2015 exceeding the revoked 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS in different areas of the Basin. The former 1-hour federal standard was not exceeded in a large portion of the Basin.

It was exceeded the most (six days) in the Central San Bernardino Valley at the San Bernardino air monitoring station. Exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard extended to all areas monitored in San Bernardino County and in Metropolitan Riverside County, as well as in Santa Clarita and the eastern San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County. The Coachella Valley did not exceed the former 1-hour ozone standard in 2015.
2-23
677 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 2-7
NUMBER OF DAYS IN 2015 EXCEEDING THE REVOKED 1979 1-HOUR FEDERAL OZONE STANDARD (1-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE > 0.12 PPM; GREEN SHADED AREA INDICATES AREAS WITH EXCEEDANCES) 2-24
678 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10)
Health Effects, Particulate Matter
A significant body of peer-reviewed scientific research, including studies conducted in Southern California, points to adverse impacts of particulate matter air pollution on both increased illness (morbidity) and increased death rates (mortality). The 2009 U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter12 describes these health effects and discusses the state of the scientific knowledge. A summary of health effects information and additional references can also be found in Appendix I: Health Effects.

There was considerable debate surrounding the review of particulate matter health effects and the consideration of ambient air quality standards when U.S. EPA promulgated the initial PM2.5 standards in 1997. Since that time, numerous additional studies have been published and key studies supporting the 1997 standards were closely scrutinized and the analyses was repeated and extended. These re-analyses confirmed the initial findings associating adverse health effects with PM2.5 exposures.

Several studies have found correlations between elevated ambient particulate matter levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks, and the number of hospital admissions in different parts of the United States and in various areas around the world. In recent years, studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and increased total mortality (reduction in life-span and increased mortality from lung cancer).

Higher levels of PM2.5 have also been related to increased mortality due to cardiovascular or respiratory diseases, hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions, school absences, lost work days, a decrease in respiratory function in children, and increased medication use in children and adults with asthma.

Long-term exposure to PM has been found to be associated with reduced lung function growth in children, and increased risk of cardiovascular diseases in adults. Elderly persons, young children, and people with pre-existing respiratory and/or cardiovascular disease appear to be more susceptible to the effects of PM10 and PM2.5.

The U.S. EPA, in its most recent review, has concluded that both short-term and long-term exposure to PM2.5 are causally related to increased mortality risk. An expanded discussion of studies relating to PM exposures and mortality, including a brief description of how studies accounted for potential confounding factors, is contained in Appendix I of this document.

Air Quality, PM2.5
The District began regular monitoring of PM2.5 in 1999 following the U.S. EPA's adoption of the national PM2.5 standards in 1997. In 2015, ambient PM2.5 concentrations were monitored at 26 locations throughout the District, including two stations in the SSAB in the Coachella Valley and two near-road sites.

Filter-based FRM PM2.5 sampling was employed at 19 of these stations and eight of the FRM measurement stations sampled daily to improve temporal coverage with the FRM measurements beyond 12 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 2-25

679 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
the required 1-in-3-day sampling schedule, including the two near-road sites. Fourteen stations, including one near-road site, employed continuous PM2.5 monitors and seven of these were collocated with FRM measurements. The continuous federal equivalent method (FEM) PM2.5 monitors in the Basin do not meet the U.S. EPA criteria to be used for NAAQS comparison13 and SCAQMD has been granted annual waivers by U.S. EPA precluding their use in NAAQS attainment consideration, although the waiver decision for 2015 data is not yet finalized. The continuous data is used for forecasting, real-time air quality alerts, and for evaluating hour-by-hour variations.

The 2015 FRM 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations are summarized in Table 2-9. PM2.5 concentrations were higher in the inland valley areas of metropolitan Riverside County and San Bernardino County. The Basin 2015 PM2.5 maximum 24-hour average concentration of 70.3 µg/m3 was measured in the East San Gabriel Valley area at the Azusa air monitoring station on July 5, associated with fireworks on Independence Day.

The next highest 24-hour PM2.5 concentration in 2015 was 56.6 µg/m3 , measured in the Metropolitan
Riverside County area at the Mira Loma air monitoring station. PM2.5 concentrations also exceeded the level of the 24-hour NAAQS (35 µg/m3
) in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in 2015.

Although maximum 24-hour concentrations exceed the standard at multiple stations, the 98th percentile form of the 2013–2015 design value only exceeded the standard at two Basin stations in Metropolitan Riverside County (Mira Loma and Riverside-Rubidoux stations), with design values of 41 µg/m3 and 36 µg/m3
, respectively (117 percent and 103 percent of the 24-hour NAAQS). Mira Loma had been the only station with a design value violating the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS since the 2008-2010 design value period.

There is no State 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

The higher PM2.5 concentrations in the Basin are mainly due to the secondary formation of smaller particulates resulting from precursor gas emissions (i.e., NOx, SOx, NH3, and VOC) that are converted to PM in the atmosphere. The precursors are from mobile, stationary and area sources, with the largest portion resulting from fuel combustion. Most of the 24-hour PM2.5 exceedances in the Basin occur in the late fall and winter months. The lack of storm events and rainfall in the last three years has contributed to an increase in the number of high PM2.5 concentration days over the standard, as the precursors and particulates are not dispersed or washed out as frequently.

In contrast to PM10, PM2.5 concentrations were relatively low in the Coachella Valley area of the SSAB.

PM10 concentrations are normally higher in the desert areas due to windblown and fugitive dust emissions; PM2.5 is relatively low in the desert area due to fewer combustion-related emissions sources and less secondary aerosol formation in the atmosphere. The PM2.5 federal standards were not exceeded in the Coachella Valley in 2015 and the highest 24-hour and annual average 2013–2015 design values (17 and 8.0 µg/m3
, respectively, both at the Indio air monitoring station) are well below the PM2.5 NAAQS.
13 The continuous PM2.5 monitors deployed by SCAQMD are FEM-designated Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM) instruments, but in use they do not meet the correlation and bias requirements set by U.S. EPA for equivalency to FRM filter measurements. The U.S. EPA waiver from NAAQS compliance for the continuous samplers is reevaluated annually as part of the SCAQMD Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan [http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/monitoring-network-plan]. 2-26

680 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-9
2015 Maximum 24-hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County#
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
PM2.5
24-Hour
Average
(µg/m3)
*
2013–2015
PM2.5
24-Hour
Design
Value
(µg/m3)
Percent of
Current
(2006)
PM2.5
NAAQS
(35 µg/m3)
Area of Design Value Max
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 70.3** 34 97 Central Los Angeles and South San Gabriel Valley
Orange 45.8 28 80 Central Orange County
Riverside 56.6 41 117 Metropolitan Riverside County
San Bernardino 50.5 35 100 Central San Bernardino Valley Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 24.6 17 49 Coachella Valley (Indio)
Bold text denotes the peak value
# Based on FRM filter data * 100 percent of the NAAQS is not in violation of that standard ** Peak value associated with Independence Day fireworks – flagged as an exceptional event The 2015 annual average PM2.5 concentrations are summarized in Table 2-10, based on the FRM measurements. The maximum annual average of 14.5 µg/m3 was measured at the CA-60 Near-Road site, located west of Vineyard Avenue near the San Bernardino/Riverside County border (near the cities of Ontario, Mira Loma, and Upland). The second highest maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration (13.3 µg/m3
) was measured in the Metropolitan Riverside County area at the Mira Loma station. The Basin maximum 2013–2015 annual average design value was 14.1 µg/m3 at the Mira Loma station (118 percent of the current 2012 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS, 12.0 µg/m3 ). This design value is below the
former 1997 annual average PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3
), for which the Basin remains in attainment. This
is the lowest PM2.5 Basin design value since these measurements began in 1999. Since the near-road PM2.5 sites only became operational in 2015, the data period is insufficient for design value calculations.

The CA-60 freeway near-road station could potentially become the design value site for the Basin for the PM2.5 annual average NAAQS, once sufficient data is collected. The annual PM2.5 State standard is based on the highest annual average over the 3-year period. It is still violated in all counties of the Basin, but not in the Coachella Valley. Figure 2-8 shows the distribution of annual average PM2.5 concentrations in different areas of the Basin.
2-27
681 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-10
2015 Maximum Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/
County
2015
Maximum
PM2.5
Annual
Average
(µg/m3)
#
2013–2015
PM2.5
Annual
Design
Value
(µg/m3)
#
Percent of
Current
(2012)
PM2.5
Annual
NAAQS
(12.0 µg/m3)
#
Percent of
Former
(1997)
Annual
NAAQS
(15.0 µg/m3)
Area of Design Value
Max
2013–2015
3-Year High
State Annual
Average PM2.5
Designation
Value
(µg/m3)
##
Percent of
State
PM2.5
Annual
Standard
(12 µg/m3)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 12.4 12.3 103 82 Central Los Angeles 19 158 Orange 9.4 10.0 83 67 Central Orange County 16 133
Riverside 13.3 14.1 118 94 Metropolitan Riverside
County 19 158
San Bernardino 11.0 12.5 104 83 Southwest San
Bernardino Valley 17 142
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 7.5 8.0 67 53 Coachella Valley (Indio) 8 67
Bold text denotes the peak value
# Based on FRM filter data, excluding near-road stations due to insufficient period of record for design value calculation; the federal design value is based on the average of the 3 annual averages in the period ## Based on combined FRM filter and continuous FEM data (federal FEM waiver is not applied to State designation value); data may include exceptional events; the State annual designation value is the highest year in the 3-year period
(State designation value source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8display.php) 2-28
682 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
FIGURE 2-8
2015 PM2.5: ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION COMPARED TO THE CURRENT FEDERAL STANDARD (ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS = 12 µg/m3
, ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN)
Near-Road PM2.5
On December 14, 2012, U.S. EPA strengthened the NAAQS for PM2.5 and, as part of the revisions, a requirement was added to monitor near the most heavily trafficked roadways in large urban areas.

Particle pollution is expected to be higher along these roadways as a result of direct emissions from cars and heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses. SCAQMD has installed the two required PM2.5 monitors by January 1, 2015, at locations selected based upon the existing near-roadway NO2 sites that were ranked higher for heavy-duty diesel traffic. The locations are: (1) I-710, located at Long Beach Blvd. in Los Angeles County near Compton and Long Beach; and (2) CA-Route 60, located west of Vineyard Avenue near the San Bernardino/Riverside County border near Ontario, Mira Loma and Upland. These nearroad sites measure PM2.5 daily with FRM filter-based measurements.

Table 2-11 summarizes the 2015 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 data from the near-road sites and nearby ambient monitoring stations. The 2015 PM2.5 annual averages from the Route 710 and Route 60 NearRoad sites were 12.89 and 14.48 µg/m3 , respectively. The nearby ambient stations in South Coastal Los Angeles County (North Long Beach Station) and in Metropolitan Riverside County (Mira Loma station) measured 12.81 and 13.34 µg/m3
, respectively, for the 2015 annual average. Thus, the PM2.5 measurements from these sites for 2015 indicate that the near-road sites do indeed measure higher than the nearby ambient stations, on average. If this pattern holds for the long term, the CA-60 near-road station could potentially become the 3-year design value site for the Basin for the PM2.5 annual average NAAQS, once sufficient data is collected.
2-29
683 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
While it reasonably could be expected that the highest near-road site would also become the basinmaximum design value site for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, this may not be the case for the Basin. The 2015 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration is higher at the I-710 Near-Road than at the nearby N.

Long Beach station. However, the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration remains higher at Mira Loma (43.2 µg/m3
) than at the CA-60 Near-Road site (39.9 µg/m3). The number of days over the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was also significantly higher at the Mira Loma station, with 17 days over the 24-hour NAAQS compared to 10 days at the CA-60 Near-Road site. PM2.5 24-hour concentrations at the Mira Loma station are likely higher than the near-road site on the highest days, due to the influence of enhanced secondary particle formation at Mira Loma.

TABLE 2-11
2015 Annual Arithmetic Mean, Maximum and 98th Percentile 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations, and Number of Samples Exceeding the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS at South Coast Air Basin Near-Road Sites and Nearby Ambient Stations
Near-Road PM2.5* Nearby Ambient PM2.5*
Annual
Average
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Peak
24-Hour
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
98th Pctl.
24-Hour
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
No.

Samples
Exceeding
24-Hour
PM2.5
NAAQS
Annual
Average
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Peak
24-Hour
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
98th Pctl.
24-Hour
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
No.

Samples
Exceeding
24-Hour
PM2.5
NAAQS
Near-Road
Station 2015 2015 2015 2015 AmbientStation 2015 2015 2015 2015 Route 710 N. R.
(@ Long Beach Bl., Los
Angeles County)

12.89 48.8 35.7 7 North Long
Beach 10.81 54.6 32.1 3
Route 60 N. R.
(West of Vineyard Av., San
Bernardino/Riverside County)

14.48 52.7 39.9 10 Mira Loma 13.34 56.6 43.2 17
Bold text denotes the peak value
* Filter-based FRM measurements shown
The annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 µg/m3; the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 µg/m3 Impacts of Drought on PM2.5 Air Quality
The drought conditions that have persisted in Southern California and the southwestern United States over the past few years have negatively affected air quality in many areas. The low amount and frequency ofrainfall leads to less washing of road surfaces and brings drier ground surfaces, which reduces the natural crusting of soils that is improved by moisture. This can lead to enhanced resuspension of fugitive dust by moving vehicles and winds. Fugitive dust can raise concentrations of both PM10 and PM2.5. More importantly, the ongoing drought conditions have caused a reduction of the natural air pollution cleansing effect of precipitation due to washout – particulate matter and its precursors captured 2-30
684 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
and removed by raindrops. The reduced frequency of storms also translates to fewer days of enhanced pollutant dispersion. Without the storm systems and related winds, there is less mixing of air pollutants with cleaner air in the atmosphere and less of the transport that moves pollutants out of the region. The lack of windy, unstable weather conditions during storms results in longer episodes of stagnant air when particulate pollution builds to unhealthful levels. The dry conditions have also contributed to increased frequency and intensity of wildfire events throughout the State, with resulting impacts to both particulate and ozone air quality. The net impact of the drought on air quality in the Basin over the past several years has been to disrupt the steady progress seen in prior years toward attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, for which the design value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile measurement.

Table 2-12 shows the rainfall statistics for the National Weather Service Downtown Los Angeles meteorological station, 2006–2015. Figure 2-9 shows the 2002–2015 trend of both 98th percentile 24- hour PM2.5 values and the 3-year design value, along with the trends of PM2.5-equivalent emissions14 and the number of rainfall days during the first and fourth quarters of the year. The first and fourth quarters are the most important to consider, since the vast majority of the days that exceed the federal 24-hour standard in the Basin occur during this period. This is also the time period that the Basin typically experiences the most rainfall and more frequent storm events. 14 PM2.5 equivalent emissions are directly emitted PM2.5 emissions plus PM2.5 precursor emissions weighted by potential to create PM2.5 (see 2012 AQMP, Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations). 2-31

685 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-12
Trends of Annual and Quarters 1 & 4 Rainfall Totals and Number of Rain Days for Downtown Los Angeles, 2006–2015
30-Year
Average
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Annual Rainfall (inches)

14.93 11.61 5.66 14.43 9.39 23.09 12.26 8.15 3.60 9.77 7.66 Quarter 1 & Quarter 4 (Jan., Feb., Mar., Oct., Nov., Dec.) Rainfall (inches)

13.38 8.61 4.40 14.28 9.21 21.39 11.80 6.42 2.80 9.37 3.82 Annual Rain Days

35.7 36 24 35 25 53 32 38 27 24 26
Quarter 1 & Quarter 4 Rain Days
29 27 19 31 21 44 27 31 21 18 17
Rainfall data from National Weather Service, Downtown Los Angeles Meteorological Station (USC Campus); Rainfall totals in inches; rain days defined as measured rainfall ≥ 0.01 inches; 30-year normal precipitation averages based on 1981-2010 data 2-32
686 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
FIGURE 2-9
TREND OF SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN MAXIMUM 24-HOUR PM2.5 YEAR DESIGN VALUES AND CORRESPONDING ANNUAL 98TH PERCENTILE CONCENTRATION AS PERCENT OF THE 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS (35 µg/m3), WITH ANNUAL TRENDS OF PM2.5 EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS AND PERCENT OF NORMAL NUMBER OF RAIN DAYS FOR QUARTERS 1 (JAN.–MAR.) AND 4 (OCT.–DEC.)
(PM2.5 FROM RIVERSIDE-RUBIDOUX AIR MONITORING STATION THROUGH 2006, THEN MIRA LOMA AFTER THAT STATION

WAS INSTALLED)
Annual precipitation totals have been below the normal, or average, value of 14.93 inches (30-year average, 1981–2010) at Downtown Los Angeles from 2011 through most of 2015. Similar relative rainfall deficits were seen at stations throughout Southern California in this time period. After a very wet year in 2010, Downtown Los Angeles measured 82 percent of normal annual rainfall in 2011, with the number of rain days in the first and fourth quarters at 93 percent of the average of 29 days that typically occur during those months. Annual rainfall in 2012 was only 55 percent of normal, but the number of rain days in the first and fourth quarters was a little above normal. Although these initial signs of the emerging drought existed in 2011 and 2012, the cumulative effect of multiple dry years had not yet taken a significant toll on air quality and the amount of storm systems and rain events was not significantly below average. The 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations continued the steady decline in 2012, as had been seen in most years since the PM2.5 measurements started in 1999. This consistent trend 0 50
100
150
200
250
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PM2.5 Equivalent Emissions (Tons per Day)
Percent of PM2.5 Standard / Percent of Normal Rain Days 24-Hour PM2.5 3-Year Design Value 24-Hour PM2.5 Annual 98th Percentile Q1 & Q4 Rain Days PM2.5 Equivalent Emissions
Federal Standard/Normal Rain Days
2-33
687 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
of improving fine particulate air quality is associated with the continued implementation of PM2.5-related emission reductions in the Basin. In 2012, the Basin maximum annual 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 was at an all-time low of 35.1 µg/m3 at Mira Loma, the Basin’s highest station, which was under the federal PM2.5 standard (35.5 µg/m3 is needed to exceed the standard due to rounding conventions).

The 2013 annual rainfall total measured at Downtown Los Angeles was just 3.6 inches, 24 percent of normal. Rainfall events of 0.01 inches or more were 27 percent fewer in 2013 than the average of 29 days that typically occur during the first and fourth quarters of the year, when the Basin historically experiences its highest 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. As the drought intensified, the impact on PM2.5 air quality became evident in 2013. The 2013 Mira Loma annual 98th percentile concentration increased to 37.5 µg/m3
. The Basin’s PM2.5-related emissions continued to decrease, while the long-term trend of steady progress seen in prior years started to reverse due to the drought-related meteorological conditions.

By 2014 the rainfall deficit from the ongoing drought in Southern California had become severe, with annual rainfall totals at 65 percent of normal at Downtown Los Angeles. With only 62 percent of the normal number of rain days and the smaller rain amounts due to the weaker and less frequent storm systems in 2014 and that year’s maximum 98th percentile PM2.5 concentration increased to 40.0 µg/m3 .

Southern California annual rainfall totals for 2015 were again quite low, with only 7.66 inches measured at Downtown Los Angeles, 51 percent of normal for the year. The first quarter of 2015 had very little rain, 2.79 inches, which is 30 percent of normal rainfall for that quarter. Only 50 percent of the normal number of rain days were recorded in the first quarter of 2015. A strong El Niño pattern developed by the end of 2015, but the rainfall increased only slightly in the fourth quarter. However, the storm track frequently reached Southern California. Even though there was little precipitation, the improved ventilation from the systems led to significantly improved PM2.5 concentrations in the fourth quarter of 2015. Unfortunately, the effect on the annual 98th percentile PM2.5 concentration was already significant due to the first quarter of 2015. That value for the year 2015 increased to 43.2 µg/m3 at Mira Loma, the highest 98th percentile concentration measured in the Basin since 2008.

With daily measurements in the Basin for PM2.5, the 98th percentile concentration is typically the eighth highest measurement at the Mira Loma air monitoring station. In recent years, the eighth or ninth highest concentration at Mira Loma may still have been over the level of the federal standard, but with the ongoing effect of the long-term drought and lack of storm systems, the 17th highest concentration, in only the first quarter of 2015, was still over the level of the NAAQS at Mira Loma. This was the highest number of days over the standard at a single station since 2007. Basin-wide, 25 days exceeded the 24- hour standard in 2015, the most in a single year since 2009. Notably, there were no additional exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard occurring at Mira Loma through the remaining three quarters of 2015, including the fourth quarter which typically includes several days over the standard.

The preliminary PM2.5 data for the first quarter of 2016 indicates that only three days exceeded the 24- hour NAAQS at Mira Loma in that quarter, as compared to 17 days for the first quarter of 2015. Only four days Basin-wide had exceedances of the NAAQS in the first quarter of 2016 at one or more stations, compared to 25 days in 2015. Likewise, the preliminary 2016 first quarter average at Mira Loma was

15.1 µg/m3
, compared to 18.4 µg/m3 for the first quarter of 2015. As was seen in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Basin did not receive the anticipated high rainfall in the first quarter of 2016 with the El Niño 2-34
688 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
conditions, but the number of days with unsettled, breezy weather conditions was significantly greater than in 2014 and 2015, leading to fewer days with elevated PM2.5 levels.

While the 2012 AQMP PM2.5 attainment demonstration and the 2015 associated supplemental SIP submission indicated that attainment of the 24-hour standard was predicted to occur by the end of 2015, it could not anticipate the effect of the ongoing drought on the measured PM2.5. The 2006 to 2010 base period used for the 2012 attainment demonstration had near-normal rainfall. While the trend of PM2.5- equivalent emission reductions continued through 2015, the severe drought conditions contributed to the PM2.5 increases observed after 2012. As a result of the disrupted progress toward attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard, SCAQMD submitted a request and the U.S. EPA approved, in January 2016, a “bump up” to the nonattainment classification from “moderate” to “serious,” with a new attainment deadline as soon as practicable, but not beyond December 31, 2019. Further discussion of drought effects on future air quality is contained in Appendix V: Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations.

Air Quality, PM10
In 2015, SCAQMD routinely monitored PM10 concentrations at 25 locations in the Basin and the Coachella Valley. Of these, 19 employed FRM filter samplers. The FRM PM10 minimum sampling schedule set by U.S. EPA requires one 24-hour filter sample every sixth day. At the Riverside-Rubidoux, Mira Loma, and Indio stations, the 24-hour filter sample is collected once every three days. In addition, nine stations have FEM15 continuous monitors, which supplement the collocated FRM measurements at five stations and are the primary measurement at four more stations. Unlike PM2.5 FEM measurements, there is no waiver for PM10 FEM instruments and those measurements serve as the official reading for attainment determination on the days with no collocated FRM filter sample.

The maximum 24-hour PM10 levels in 2015 are summarized by county and basin in Table 2-13, along with the design values and state designation values. The federal 24-hour standard level (155 µg/m3 is the exceedance level) was only exceeded at two stations in the Basin on two different days in 2015, in the Perris Valley on September 9 (188 µg/m3
) and in the Central San Bernardino Valley on December 26 (187 µg/m3
), measured with FRM monitors. These high 24-hour averages were both due to high-wind exceptional events and also do not jeopardize the attainment design value at this time, which allows for one exceedance per year at a station, averaged over three years. The Basin has remained in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS since 2006. The Basin maximum 2013–2015 design value for 24-hour PM10 is 126 µg/m3 (81 percent of the NAAQS), in Metropolitan Riverside County at the Mira Loma monitoring station.

The much more stringent State 24-hour PM10 standard (50 µg/m3 ) was exceeded at many stations in the
Basin and in the Coachella Valley.

The Coachella Valley had eight days in 2015 exceeding the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, with concentrations as high as 337 µg/m3 at the Indio monitoring station – all of which were due to windblown dust and sand associated with high-wind exceptional events. The Palm Springs monitoring station only exceeded on 15 The continuous FEM PM10 monitors deployed by SCAQMD are primarily Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM) instruments, although some PM10 Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) instruments are also used, most notably in the Coachella Valley.
2-35

689 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
two of those days. The recent FEM monitor at Saul Martinez Elementary School, in the town of Mecca in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley, exceeded the standard on five days in 2015, all related to high-wind events. The Coachella Valley 2013–2015 design value for 24-hour PM10 is 150 µg/m3 , at
Indio, after the exclusion of the exceptional events, which would not violate the PM10 NAAQS, if U.S. EPA concurs with exceptional events upon submittal of supporting documentation.

TABLE 2-13
2015 Maximum 24-hour Average PM10 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
PM10
24-Hour
Average
(µg/m3)
*
2013–2015
PM10
24-Hour
Design Value
(µg/m3)
*
2013–2015
Percent of
PM10
NAAQS
(150 µg/m3)
#
Area of Design Value Max
2013–2015
High State
PM10
24-Hour
Designation
Value
(µg/m3)
##
2013–2015
Percent
of State
PM10
24-Hour
Standard
(50 µg/m3)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 101 93 60 East San Gabriel Valley 75.6 151
Orange 66 85 55 Central Orange County 12.1 24
Riverside 139** 126 81 Metropolitan Riverside County 123.8 248 San Bernardino 96** 103 66 Central San Bernardino Valley 19.2 38 Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 152** 150 100 Coachella Valley (Indio) 128.2 256 Bold text denotes the peak value
* Based on the FRM data when available, otherwise FEM data is included ** Higher 24-hour PM10 concentrations were measured in 2015, up to 337 µg/m3 in the Coachella Valley and up to 188 µg/m3 in Riverside County (Perrisstation), that were related to high-wind events and have been flagged for exclusion from NAAQS comparison in accordance with the U.S. EPA Exceptional Events Rule; U.S. EPA concurrence is required for exclusion of exceptional events after submittal of supporting documentation # 155 µg/m3 is needed to exceed the level of the PM10 NAAQS ## The State 24-hour Expected Peak Day Concentration (EPDC) is a calculated 3-year value after accounting for statistical outliers; the State 24-hour Designation Value is the highest concentration at or below the EPDC over the 3-year period; State data may include exceptional events; State PM10 24-hour average designation value includes FRM and BAM FEM data, but not TEOM FEM instruments since the TEOM is not a California Approved Sampler (CAS) for standard compliance (SCAQMD uses TEOM instruments to supplement FEM measurements in the Coachella Valley) The maximum annual average PM10 in 2015 is summarized by county and air basin in Table 2-14, along with the design values and state designation values. In 2015, the revoked annual average PM10 NAAQS (50 µg/m3
) was not exceeded in the Basin, with an annual averaged concentration of 48.8 µg/m3 in Metropolitan Riverside County at the Mira Loma station. However, the 3-year annual PM10 design value for 2013–2015 exceeded the former NAAQS at Mira Loma, at 51.8 µg/m3 . No other stations in the Basin
or the Coachella Valley exceeded the former standard in 2015 or for the 2013–2015 design value. The 2-36
690 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
much more stringent State annual PM10 standard (20 µg/m3) was exceeded in most stations in each county in the Basin and in the Coachella Valley.

TABLE 2-14
2015 Maximum Annual Average PM10 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
PM10
Annual
Average
(µg/m3)
*
2013–2015
PM10
Annual
Design
Value
(µg/m3)
2013–2015
Percent of
Former
PM10
Annual
NAAQS**
(50 µg/m3)
Area of Design Value Max
2013–2015
3-Yr. High
State PM10
Annual
Designation
Value
(µg/m3)
#
2013–2015
Percent of
Current
PM10
State
Standard
(20 µg/m3)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 37.1 38.0 76 East San Gabriel Valley 43 215 Orange 24.8 26.1 52 Central Orange County 27 135
Riverside 48.8 51.8 104 Metropolitan Riverside County 45 225 San Bernardino 37.8 39.4 79 Central San Bernardino Valley 39 195 Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 36.5 37.2 74 Coachella Valley (Indio) 45 225
Bold text denotes the peak value
* Based on the FRM data when available, otherwise FEM data is used; flagged exceptional event days are excluded ** The federal annual PM10 standard was revoked in 2006 # State data may include exceptional events; State PM10 annual average designation value includes FRM and BAM FEM data, but not TEOM FEM instruments since the TEOM is not a California Approved Sampler (CAS) for standard compliance (SCAQMD uses TEOM instruments to supplement FEM measurements in the Coachella Valley); State annual designation value is the highest year in the 3-year period 2-37
691 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Other Criteria Air Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Health Effects, CO
The adverse effects of ambient carbon monoxide air pollution exposure on health have been reviewed in the 2010 U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide.16 This document presents a detailed review of the available scientific studies and conclusions on the causal determination of the health effects of CO. A summary of health effects information and additional references can also be found in Appendix I: Health Effects.

Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of worsening oxygen supply delivery to the heart.

Inhaled CO has no known direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport, by competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, people with conditions requiring an increased oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency), such as is seen at high altitudes.

Reductions in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels, including preterm births and heart abnormalities.

Air Quality, CO
Ambient carbon monoxide concentrations were measured at 25 locations in the Basin and neighboring SSAB areas in 2015, including one station in the Coachella Valley and two year-road monitors. Tables 2- 15 and 2-16 summarize the 2015 maximum 1-hour and 8-hour average concentrations of CO by air basin and county. In 2015, no areas in the Basin or the Coachella Valley exceeded the CO air quality standards, including the near-road stations. The highest concentrations of CO continued to be recorded in the areas of Los Angeles County, where vehicular traffic is most dense, with the maximum 8-hour and 1-hour concentration (4.3 ppm and 3.0 ppm, respectively) recorded in the South Central Los Angeles County area.

The new near-road monitors in Orange and San Bernardino counties did not increase the Basin’s maximum CO values or design values in 2015 over that from Los Angeles County, although the near-road concentrations were often higher than the nearest ambient stations.

All areas of the Basin have continued to remain below the federal standards (35 ppm 1-hour and 9 ppm 8-hour)since 2003. U.S EPA re-designated the Basin to attainment of the federal CO standards, effective June 11, 2017. There also have been no exceedances of the State 1 episode (federal alert) level (8-hour 16 U.S. EPA. (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. 2-38

692 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
CO ≥ 15 ppm). The Basin and the Coachella Valley are also well below the State CO standards (20 ppm 1-hour and 9.0 ppm 8-hour).

TABLE 2-15
2015 Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentrations and 2015 Design Values by Basin and County Basin/County
2015
Maximum
CO 1-Hour
Average
(ppm)
2015
CO 1-Hour
Design Value*
(ppm)
Percent of
CO 1-Hour
NAAQS
(35 ppm)
Area of Design Value Max
Percent of
CO 1-Hour
State
Standard
(20 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 4.4 4.3 11 South Central L.A. County 22
Orange 3.1
(3.1 at I-5 N.R.)

2.9 (2.9 at I-5 N.R.)
8 (8)
North Orange County 15
(15)
Riverside 2.5 2.2 6 Metropolitan Riverside
County
11 San Bernardino 2.8
(2.7 at I-10 N.R.)

2.2 (2.7 at I-10 N.R.)**
6 (8)
Central San Bernardino Valley 11
(14)
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 2.0 1.9 5 Coachella Valley 10
Bold text denotes Basin maximum; I-5 and I-10 near-road monitors are shown in parenthesis * The 1-hour CO design value is the 2nd highest 1-hour average concentration at a station in a single year ** The 2015 1-hour CO design value maximum in San Bernardino County was at the I-10 near-road station 2-39
693 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-16
2015 Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations and 2015 Design Values by Basin and County Basin/County
2015
Maximum
CO 8-Hour
Average
(ppm)
2015
CO 8-Hour
Design Value*
(ppm)
Percent of
CO 8-Hour
NAAQS
(9 ppm)
Area of Design Value Max
Percent of
CO 8-Hour
State
Standard
(9.0 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 3.3 3.0 33 South Central L.A. County 33
Orange 2.2
(2.3 at I-5 N.R.)

2.0 (2.3 at I-5 N.R.)
22 (26)
Central Orange County 22
(26)
Riverside 1.7 1.5 17 Metropolitan Riverside County 17
San Bernardino 1.8
(2.6 at I-10
N.R.)

1.8 (2.5 at I-10 N.R.)
20 (28)
Central San Bernardino Valley 20
(28)
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 0.7 0.5 6 Coachella Valley 6
Bold text denotes Basin maximum; I-5 and I-10 near-road monitors are shown in parenthesis * The 8-hour CO design value is the 2nd highest 8-hour average concentration at a station in a single year Near-Road CO
On August 12, 2011 U.S. EPA issued a decision to retain the existing NAAQS for CO, determining that those standards provided the required level of public health protection. However, U.S. EPA added a monitoring requirement for near-road CO monitors in urban areas with population of 1 million or more, utilizing stations that would be implemented to meet the 2010 NO2 near-road monitoring requirements.

The two new CO monitors are at the I-5 Near-Road site, located in Orange County near Anaheim, and the I-10 Near-Road site, located near Etiwanda Avenue in San Bernardino County near Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana.

The near-road CO measurements began at these two locations in late December 2014. From that time to the end of 2015, the data shows that while the near-road measurements were often higher than the nearest ambient monitors, as would be expected in the near-road environment, they did not exceed the levels of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO NAAQS. Tables 2-17 and 2-18 compare the available near-road measurements for annual peak 1-hour and 8-hour CO, respectively, to the comparable measurements from the nearby ambient stations at Anaheim and Fontana. The form of the CO standard is such that the peak concentration is not to be exceeded more than once per year. The tables include the second highest concentration for comparison to this design value form of the standard.

The 2015 near-road peak 1-hour CO concentration measured was 3.1 ppm, measured at the I-5 Near-Road site, while the peak 8-hour CO concentration was 2.6 ppm at the I-10 Near-Road site, both well below the respective NAAQS levels (35 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively). The 2015 near-road CO design values were higher than that of the nearest ambient stations for both federal standards. Based on this limited period 2-40
694 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
of data, it appears that the near-road CO design values will be very unlikely to affect the Basin’s attainment status for the State and federal CO standards.

TABLE 2-17
2014 and 2015 Maximum and Second Highest 1-Hour CO Concentrations at South Coast Air Basin Near-Road Sites and Nearby Ambient Stations Near-Road CO Nearby Ambient CO
Peak
1-Hour CO
(ppm)
2nd Maximum
1-Hour CO
(ppm)
Peak
1-Hour CO
(ppm)
2nd Maximum
1-Hour CO
(ppm)
Near-Road
Station
Start
Date 2014 2015 2014 2015 AmbientStation 2014 2015 2014 2015 Route 5 N. R.
(at Vernon St., Orange
County)
12/18/2014 N/A 3.1 N/A 2.9 Anaheim 3.1 3.1 2.6 2.6
Route 10 N. R.
(at Etiwanda Av., San
Bernardino County)
12/23/2014 N/A 2.7 N/A 2.7 Fontana 2.6 2.8 2.2 2.2
Bold text denotes maximum concentration between near-road and nearby ambient stations N/A = complete data not available for valid calculation The 1-hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once at a station in a single year 2-41
695 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-18
2014 and 2015 Maximum and Second Highest 8-Hour CO Concentrations at South Coast Air Basin Near-Road Sites and Nearby Ambient Stations Near-Road CO Nearby Ambient CO
Peak
8-Hour CO
(ppm)
2nd Maximum
8-Hour CO
(ppm)
Peak
8-Hour CO
(ppm)
2nd Maximum
8-Hour CO
(ppm)
Near-Road
Station
Start
Date 2014 2015 2014 2015 AmbientStation 2014 2015 2014 2015 Route 5 N. R.
(at Vernon St.,
Orange County)
12/18/2014 N/A 2.3 N/A 2.3 Anaheim 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0
Route 10 N. R.
(at Etiwanda Av.,
San Bernardino County)
12/23/2014 N/A 2.6 N/A 2.5 Fontana 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1
Bold text denotes maximum concentration between near-road and nearby ambient stations N/A = complete data not available for valid calculation The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once at a station in a single year Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Health Effects, NO2
The adverse effects of ambient nitrogen dioxide air pollution exposure on health were reviewed in the 2008 U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria, 17 and more recently
in the 2016 U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria. 18 These
documents present detailed reviews of the available scientific studies and conclusions on the causal determination of the health effects of NO2, including evidence supporting the short-term NO2 standard (1-hour, 100 ppb), which was adopted in 2010. A summary of health effects information and additional references can also be found in Appendix I: Health Effects.

The 2016 U.S. EPA review noted the respiratory effects of NO2, and evidence suggestive of impacts on cardiovascular health, mortality and cancer. Evidence for low-level nitrogen dioxide (NO2) exposure effects is derived from laboratory studies of asthmatics and from epidemiological studies. Additional evidence is derived from animal studies. In the 2016 ISA, the U.S. EPA cited the coherence of the results 17 U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/071. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645. 18 U.S. EPA. (2016). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/068. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879. 2-42

696 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
from a variety of studies, and a plausible biological mechanism to support the determination of a causal relationship between short-term NO2 exposures and asthma exacerbations (“asthma attacks”). The long-term link with respiratory outcomes was strengthened by recent experimental and epidemiological studies, and the strongest evidence available is from studies of asthma development.

Experimental studies have found that NO2 exposures increase responsiveness of airways, pulmonary inflammation, and oxidative stress, and can lead to the development of allergic responses. These biological responses provide evidence of a plausible mechanism for NO2 to cause asthma. Additionally, results from controlled exposure studies of asthmatics demonstrate an increase in the tendency of airways to contract in response to a chemical stimulus (airway responsiveness) or after inhaled allergens.

Animal studies also provide evidence that NO2 exposures have negative effects on the immune system, and therefore increase the host’s susceptibility to respiratory infections. Epidemiological studies showing associations between NO2 levels and hospital admissions for respiratory infections support such a link, although the studies examining respiratory infections in children are less consistent.

Based on the review of the NO2 standards, U.S. EPA established the 1-hour NO2 standard to protect the public health against short-term exposure. The standard is set at 100 ppb over a 1-hour average and became effective on April 7, 2010.

Air Quality, NO2
In 2015, ambient NO2 concentrations were monitored at 27 locations, including one in the Coachella Valley and four near-road monitoring stations. The Basin has not exceeded the federal annual standard for NO2 (0.0534 ppm) since 1991, when the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin recorded the last violation of that standard in the U.S. The current 1-hour average NO2 NAAQS (100 ppb) was exceeded on one day in 2015 in the South Coastal Los Angeles County area at the Long Beach – Hudson air monitoring station (a location close to periodic diesel truck and bus activity). However, the 98th percentile form of the standard was not exceeded and the 2013–2015 design value is not in violation of the NAAQS.

The higher relative concentrations in the Los Angeles area are indicative of the concentrated emission sources, especially heavy-duty vehicles. Although the Basin is in attainment of the State and federal standards, NO2 is still of concern, since oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are precursors to both ozone and particulate matter. Further control of NOx will be required to attain the ozone and particulate standards.

The Basin has not exceeded the federal annual standard for NO2 (0.053 ppm or 53 ppb) since 1991, when the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin recorded the last violation of that standard in the U.S. No State NO2 standards were exceeded in 2015. Tables 2-19 and 2-20 summarize the 2015 maximum 1- hour and annual average concentrations of NO2 by air basin and county. These tables do not include the new near-road stations, since the period of record is not yet sufficient to calculate the 3-year NO2 design values. The near-road NO2 data is summarized further below. 2-43
697 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 2-19
2015 Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County Basin/County
2015
Maximum
NO2 1-Hour
Average
(ppb)
2013–2015
NO2 1-Hour
Design
Value
(ppb)
Percent of
NO2 1-Hour
NAAQS
(100 ppb)
Area of Design Value Max
2013–2015
NO2 1-Hour
State
Designation
Value
(ppm)
Percent of
NO2 1-Hour
State
Standard
(0.18 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 101.8* 74 74 South Coastal LA Co. 0.14 78
Orange 59.1 58 58 Central Orange County 0.09 50
Riverside 68.1 54 54 Metropolitan Riverside County 0.07 39 San Bernardino 89.1 64 64 Central San Bernardino Valley 0.09 50 Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 41.5 39 39 Coachella Valley 0.05 28
Bold text denotes the peak value
This table does not include near-road stations since the data period is insufficient for 3-year design value calculation (see near-road discussion below)
The 1-hour NO2 design value is the annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years at a station
* Although the maximum 1-hour concentrations exceeded the standard on one day, the 98th percentile form of the design value did not exceed the NAAQS
2-44
698 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-20
2015 Maximum Annual Average NO2 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
NO2 Annual
Average
(ppm)
2013–2015
NO2 Annual
Design
Value
(ppm)
Percent of
NO2 Annual
NAAQS
(0.053 ppm)
Area of Design Value Max
2013–2015
NO2 Annual
State
Designation
Value#
(ppm
Percent of
NO2 Annual
State
Standard
(0.030 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 0.0222 0.022 42 Central Los Angeles County 0.023 77 Orange 0.0150 0.016 30 Central Orange County 0.018 60
Riverside 0.0144 0.016 30 Metropolitan Riverside County 0.017 57 San Bernardino 0.0187 0.020 38 Central San Bernardino Valley 0.021 70 Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 0.0062 0.007 13 Coachella Valley 0.008 27
Bold text denotes the peak value
The annual NO2 design value is the annual average of the quarterly averages, averaged over 3 years at a station This table does not include near-road stations since the data period is insufficient for the design value calculation Near-Road NO2
With the revised NO2 federal standard in 2010, near-road NO2 measurements were required to be phased in for larger cities. The four near-road monitoring stations are: (1) I-5 Near-Road, located in Orange County near Anaheim; (2) I-710 Near-Road, located at Long Beach Blvd. in Los Angeles County near Compton and Long Beach; (3) CA-60 Near-Road, located west of Vineyard Avenue near the San Bernardino/Riverside County border near Ontario, Mira Loma and Upland; and (4) I-10 Near-Road, located near Etiwanda Avenue in San Bernardino County near Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana.

The longest operating near-road station in the Basin, adjacent to I-5 in Orange County, has not exceeded the level of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS (100 ppb) since the measurements began on January 1, 2014. The peak 1-hour NO2 concentration at that site in 2014 was 78.8 ppb and the peak concentration for 2015 was

70.2 ppb. This can be compared to the annual peak values measured at the nearest ambient monitoring station in Central Orange County (Anaheim station), where the 2014 and 2015 peaks were 75.8 and 59.1, respectively. In terms of the design value form of the NAAQS, the 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentrations at the Anaheim near-road site were 66.0 ppb and 61.4 ppb, respectively, for 2014 and 2015, compared to 59.8 ppb and 54.6 ppb from the Anaheim ambient monitoring station. The annual average NO2 NAAQS (0.053 ppm, or 53 ppb) was also not exceeded. Thus, while the Anaheim near-road NO2 measurements are higher than the ambient Orange County measurements, as would be expected close to traffic emissions sources, it does not appear that NO2 design values will violate the NAAQS or CAAQS at this location.
2-45
699 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Likewise, the shorter period of data available from the remaining three near-road stations indicates that these locations will also likely measure higher NO2 than the nearest ambient stations, but they have not exceeded the level of the 1-hour or annual NO2 NAAQS or CAAQS through the end of 2015. Tables 2-21 and 2-22 compare the available near-road NO2 measurements for peak 1-hour and annual average NO2, respectively, to the nearest ambient measurements. The 98th percentile concentration is included for comparison to the design value form of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb. Based on this limited period of data, it appears that the near-road NO2 measurements will be unlikely to affect the Basin’s attainment status for the State and federal NO2 standards.

TABLE 2-21
2014 and 2015 Maximum and 98th Percentile 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations at South Coast Air Basin Near-Road Sites and Nearby Ambient Stations Near-Road NO2 Nearby Ambient NO2
Annual Peak
1-Hour NO2
(ppb)
98th Percentile
1-Hour NO2
(ppb)
Annual Peak
1-Hour NO2
(ppb)
98th Percentile
1-Hour NO2
(ppb)
Near-Road
Station
Start
Date 2014 2015* 2014 2015* AmbientStation 2014 2015 2014 2015 I-5 N. R.
(at Vernon St., Orange County) 1/1/2014 78.8 70.2 66.0 61.4 Anaheim 75.8 59.1 59.8 54.6 I-710 N. R.
(at Long Beach Bl., Los Angeles
County)
2/18/2015 N/A 94.7 N/A 74.8 Compton 68.2 73.6 59.2 58.7 CA-60 N. R.
(West of Vineyard Av., San
Bernardino/Riverside County)
7/9/2015 N/A 79.2 N/A 77.2 Upland 74.1 71.6 56.7 55.7
I-10 N. R.
(at Etiwanda Av., San
Bernardino County)
10/8/2014 93.0 87.2 69.5 73.0 Fontana 70.4 89.1 63.6 66.1 Bold text denotes the peak value
N/A = data not available (monitoring not started)
* 2015 data is incomplete for I-710 and CA-60 Near-Road Sites The 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is 100 ppb
2-46
700 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-22
2014 and 2015 Annual NO2 Concentrations at South Coast Air Basin Near-Road Sites and Nearby Ambient Stations
Near-Road NO2 Nearby Ambient NO2
Annual
Average
NO2
(ppb)
Annual
Average
NO2
(ppb)
Near-Road
Station
Start
Date 2014 2015* AmbientStation 2014 2015
I-5 N. R.
(at Vernon St., Orange County) 1/1/2014 27.2 25.4 Anaheim 15.2 14.6 I-710 N. R.
(at Long Beach Bl., Los Angeles County) 2/18/2015 N/A 23.9 Compton 15.6 16.9 CA-60 N. R.
(West of Vineyard Av., San
Bernardino/Riverside County)
7/9/2015 N/A N/A Upland 16.6 15.9
I-10 N. R.
(at Etiwanda Av., San Bernardino County) 10/8/2014 N/A 29.8 Fontana 20.2 18.7 Bold text denotes the peak value
N/A = data not available (monitoring not started)
* 2015 data is incomplete for I-710 and CA-60 Near-Road Sites The annual average NO2 NAAQS is 0.053 ppm, or 53 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Health Effects, SO2
The adverse effects of SO2 air pollution exposure on health were reviewed in the 2008 U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides – Health Criteria. 19 This document presents a detailed review
of the available scientific studies and conclusions on the causal determination of the health effects of SO2, including the justification to rescind the 24-hour standard and replace it with the new 2010 1-hour standard (75 ppb). A summary of health effects information and additional references can also be found in Appendix I: Health Effects.

Individuals affected by asthma are especially sensitive to the effects of SO2. Exposure to low levels (0.2 to 0.6 ppm) of SO2 for a few (5–10) minutes can result in airway constriction in some exercising asthmatics.

Increased resistance to air flow and reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing 19 U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides – Health Criteria (Final Report). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/047F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843#Download. 2-47

701 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
difficulties, are observed after acute high exposure to SO2 in asthmatics. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO2.

Animal studies suggest that SO2 at ambient concentrations can cause allergic sensitization and airway inflammation. Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient SO2 levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of SO2 from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor.

Based on the review of the SO2 standards, U.S. EPA has established the 1-hour SO2 standard to protect the public health against short-term exposure. The 1-hour average NAAQS was set at 75 ppb and the annual (0.03 ppm) and 24-hour (0.14 ppm) federal standards were revoked, effective August 2, 2010.

Air Quality, SO2
No exceedances of federal or State standards for sulfur dioxide occurred in 2015, or in any recent year, at any of the six SCAQMD ambient monitoring locations. The annual and 24-hour federal standards were last exceeded in the 1960’s and the State standards were last exceeded in 1990. Though sulfur dioxide concentrations remain well below the standards, sulfur dioxide is a precursor to sulfate, which is a component of fine particulate matter. Tables 2-23 and 2-24 summarize the 2015 maximum 1-hour and annual average concentrations of SO2 by air basin and county. Sulfur dioxide was not measured at the Coachella Valley sites in 2015. Historical measurements and source emission profiles show that expected concentrations in the Coachella Valley will be well below State and federal standards. 2-48
702 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-23
2015 Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
SO2 1-Hour
Average
(ppb)
2013–2015
SO2 1-Hour
Design
Value
(ppb)
Percent of
SO2 1-Hour
NAAQS
(75 ppb)
Area of Design
Value Max
Percent of
SO2 1-Hour
State
Standard
(0.25 ppm =
250 ppb)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 37.5 11 15 South Coastal LA County 4
Orange 4.5 3 4 North Coastal Orange County 1
Riverside 1.9 3 4 Metropolitan Riverside County 1
San Bernardino 4.0 3 4 Central San Bernardino Valley 1
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside N.D. N.D. N.D. Coachella Valley N.D.

Bold text denotes the peak value
N.D. = No Data. Historical measurements and lack of emissions sources indicate concentrations are well below standards The 1-hour SO2 design value is the annual 99th percentile 1-hour daily maximum concentration, averaged over 3 years at a station
TABLE 2-24
2015 Maximum 24-Hour Average SO2 Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
SO2 24-Hour
Average
(ppm)
2013–2015
SO2 24-Hour
Design
Value
(ppm)
Percent of
SO2 24-Hour
former
NAAQS
(0.14 ppm)
Area of Design Value Max
Percent of
SO2 24-Hour
State
Standard
(0.04 ppm)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 0.005 0.003 2 South Coastal LA County 8
Orange 0.001 0.001 1 North Coastal Orange County 3
Riverside 0.001 0.001 1 Metropolitan Riverside County 3 San Bernardino 0.001 0.001 2 Central San Bernardino Valley 3 Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside N.D. N.D. N.D. Coachella Valley N.D.

Bold text denotes the peak value
N.D. = No Data. Historical measurements and lack of emissions sources indicate concentrations are well below standards The 24-hour SO2 design value is the 2nd highest 24-hour average concentration at a station in a single year 2-49
703 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Sulfates (SO42-)
Health Effects, SO42-
In 2002, CARB reviewed and retained the State standard for sulfates, retaining the concentration level (25 µg/m3
) but changing the basis of the standard from a Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) measurement to a PM10 measurement. In their 2002 staff report, 20 CARB reviewed the health studies related to exposure to ambient sulfates, along with particulate matter, and found an association with mortality and the same range of morbidity effects as PM10 and PM2.5, although the associations were not as consistent as with PM10 and PM2.5. The 2009 U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter21 also contains a review of sulfate studies.

Most of the health effects associated with fine particles and SO2 at ambient levels are also associated with sulfates. Thus, both mortality and morbidity effects have been observed with an increase in ambient sulfate concentrations. However, efforts to separate the effects of sulfates from the effects of other pollutants have generally not been successful.

Air Quality, SO42-
Sulfates, as measured from FRM PM10 filters, was sampled at 18 stations in 2015 in the SCAQMD jurisdiction, including two locations in the Coachella Valley. Two stations were closed in 2014, Burbank and Ontario Fire Station, with only partial-year data available. The North Long Beach station was closed in 2013. New locations are pending for the Burbank and North Long Beach stations. Since the sulfate measurement is analyzed in the laboratory from the collected 24-hour PM10 filters, the sulfate network is identical to the FRM PM10 monitoring network. The measurements are done every sixth day, except that two stations in Metropolitan Riverside County (Rubidoux and Mira Loma) and one in the Coachella Valley (Indio) measure every third day.

In 2015, the State 24-hour PM10-sulfate standard (25 µg/m3 ) was not exceeded anywhere in the Basin or
the Coachella Valley, nor has it been exceeded since 1990. The peak Basin sulfate concentration of 21.0 µg/m3 (84 percent of the State standard) was measured in the East San Gabriel Valley. This was higher than the peaks in recent years, due to the impact of Independence Day fireworks on the July 5 measurements. Several other stations in the Basin also had annual peaks on this day and it is anticipated that they will not be included in the State designation value calculation. There is no corresponding federal standard for sulfates. Maximum 24-hour concentrations and 3-year maximum State designation values by air basin and county are summarized in Table 2-25. 20 CARB. (2002). Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/aaqspm/isor.pdf.
21 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 2-50

704 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-25
2015 Maximum 24-Hour Average Sulfate (SO4
2- from PM10) Concentrations
by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Maximum
SO4
2- 24-Hour
Average
(µg/m3)
2013–2015
SO4
2- 24-Hour
State Designation
Value
(µg/m3)
2015
Percent of
SO4
2- State
Standard
(25 µg/m3)
Area of Max
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles 21.0* 6.9* 33 South Coastal Los Angeles
County
Orange 4.2 4.2 17 Central Orange County
Riverside 5.9* 4.2* 17 Metropolitan Riverside County
San Bernardino 14.7* 4.6* 18 Central San Bernardino Valley Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside 4.6** 2.6** 10 Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) Bold text denotes the peak value
* The 2015 Basin maximum sulfate concentration of 21.0 µg/m3 in Los Angeles County, as well as the peaks in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, occurred on July 5, 2015, due to fireworks on Independence Day; it is anticipated that these may be excluded from the State designation value calculations for a peak 2015 Basin designation value of 6.9 µg/m3
** The 2015 Coachella Valley maximum sulfate concentration of 4.6 µg/m3 at the Palm Springs station was associated with a high-wind exceptional event; it is anticipated that this may be excluded from the State designation value calculations for a peak 2015 Basin designation value of 2.6 µg/m3 Lead (Pb)
Health Effects, Lead
The adverse effects of ambient lead exposures on health were reviewed in the 2013 U.S. EPA document, Integrated Science Assessment for Lead: Final Report.
22 This document presents a detailed assessment
of the available scientific studies and presents conclusions on the causal determination of the health effects of lead, including the rationale to retain the current federal lead standard. A summary of health effects information and additional references can also be found in Appendix I: Health Effects.

Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of lead exposure.

Long-term exposure to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central 22 U.S. EPA. (2013). Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/075F.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=255721#Download. 2-51

705 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotients. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure and risk of coronary heart disease. Lead is linked to important hematological effects, such as impaired red blood cell function.

Lead poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death. Lead can be stored in the bone from early-age environmental exposure, and elevated blood lead levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland), and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of lead because of previous environmental lead exposure of their mothers.

Air Quality, Lead
Lead (Pb), as analyzed from Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) samples, was measured at eight ambient locations and an additional five source-specific stations in the Basin in 2015. This includes a new sourcespecific lead monitor that was installed in Fontana near a recycling facility starting in January 2015.

Based on the review of the NAAQS for lead, U.S. EPA established the current standard of 0.15 µg/m3 for a rolling 3-month average, effective October 15, 2008. There have been no violations of the lead standards at the District’s regular population-based ambient air monitoring stations since 1982, primarily as a result of removal of lead from gasoline. However, monitoring at two stations immediately adjacent to stationary sources of lead recorded exceedances of the current standard in Los Angeles County over the 2007–2009 time period. These data were used for designations under the revised standard that also included new requirements for near-source monitoring. As a result, a nonattainment designation was finalized for much of the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin when the current standard was implemented.

Table 2-26 summarizes the Basin’s maximum 3-month rolling average lead concentrations recorded in 2015 and in the 2013–2015 design value period, by county. The current lead concentrations in Los Angeles county are now well below the NAAQS, including the monitoring at the source-oriented locations, the highest of which is now 53 percent of the NAAQS for the maximum 3-month rolling average occurring near the beginning of the 3-year design value period. More recent lead data from the source-specific locations have been even lower due, in part, to the implementation of stricter SCAQMD rules for these sources. The peak 3-month average in 2015 (0.04 µg/m3
) was only 27 percent of the NAAQS. The other
three counties in the Basin have also remained well below the NAAQS. The less-stringent State 30-day standards for lead were not exceeded in any area of the District in 2015, or in recent years.

While near-source lead measurements in Los Angeles County had previously violated the current NAAQS, there have been no exceedances of the federal standard in the Basin for either the 2012–2014 or 2013– 2015 design value periods. As a result, SCAQMD will be petitioning U.S. EPA for a re-designation to attainment for the federal lead standard for the Los Angeles County nonattainment area. Stringent SCAQMD rules governing lead-producing sources will help to ensure that there are no future violations of the federal standard. Furthermore, one business that had been responsible for the highest measured lead concentrations in Los Angeles County has closed and is in the process of demolition and site cleanup. 2-52
706 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
TABLE 2-26
2015 Maximum 3-Month Rolling Average Lead (Pb) Concentrations and 2013–2015 Design Values by Basin and County
Basin/County
2015
Max Pb
3-Month
Rolling
Average
Design
Value
(µg/m3
)
2013–2015
Max Pb
3-Month
Rolling
Average
Design
Value
(µg/m3
)
Percent
of
Current Pb
NAAQS
(0.15 µg/m3
)
Area of Design Value Max
2015
Max Pb
30-Day
Average
(µg/m3
)
Percent
of
State Pb
Standard
(1.5 µg/m3
)
South Coast Air Basin
Los Angeles* 0.04 0.08 53 Southeast Los Angeles 0.05 3
Orange N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

Riverside 0.01 0.01 7 Metropolitan Riverside County 0.01 1 San Bernardino 0.03 0.03 20 Northwest San Bernardino Valley, Central San Bernardino Valley 0.04 3
Salton Sea Air Basin
Riverside N.D. N.D. N.D. Coachella Valley N.D. N.D.

Bold text denotes the peak value
N.D. = No Data. Historical measurements and emissions profiles indicate concentrations would be well below standards * The higher lead concentrations in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties were measured at sites immediately downwind lead sources; the maximum 3-month average design value was measured at a near-source station in Los Angeles County (Santa Fe Springs) for February through April of 2013; the single year of data from the San Bernardino County near-source lead monitor is insufficient for a complete 3-year design value calculation, but is included here 2-53
707 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Air Quality Compared to Other U.S. Metropolitan Areas
In spite of significant improvement, the Basin still has some of the worst air quality in the nation. In 2015, seven of the country’s top ten locations most frequently exceeding the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS were located within the Basin, including stations in San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.23 The location with the highest number of days over the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS was in the Basin’s Central San Bernardino Mountains (86 days in the community of Crestline). The Basin exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on 81 days, more days than any other areas in the country. The Basin exceeded the 2015 ozone NAAQS on 113 days. Similarly, seven out of the top ten locations with the highest maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations in the nation were also located in the Basin. Of the top ten locations, only one area (Houston, Texas) was located outside of California. The highest maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration recorded was 0.127 ppm (in the Central San Bernardino Mountains area), almost 180 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Figures 2-10 and 2-11 show the maximum pollutant concentrations in 2015 for the Basin compared to other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. and California air basins, respectively. Maximum concentrations in all of these areas exceeded both the 2015 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The current annual PM2.5 standard was exceeded in the South Coast Air Basin, Houston, and Chicago metropolitan areas, as well as in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard, was exceeded in the Basin, Phoenix, and Chicago, as well as in all of the California air basins shown except San Diego.

The 24-hour PM10 standard was not exceeded in any of the U.S. areas and California air basins shown, once data flagged for exceptional events was excluded from the analysis. Of the areas shown for 2015, the level of the 1-hour NO2 federal standard was exceeded in the Basin, Houston, and New York areas, as well as in the San Joaquin Valley. SO2 concentrations were below the 1-hour federal standard in the Basin and in all of the urban areas shown in Figures 2-10 and 2-11. However, the SO2 standard was exceeded in other U.S. urban and rural areas, with the highest 2015 concentrations recorded in the State of Arizona (Gila County). The CO standards were not exceeded in the U.S. in 2015 and are not shown in the figures. Nationwide, the federal lead standard (not shown) was exceeded at six locations in 2015, at source-oriented monitoring stations, in Pennsylvania and Arizona. 23 The top 10 stations in the nation for number of exceedances in 2015 of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.070 ppm) include Basin stations in the areas of Central San Bernardino Mountains (in the Crestline-Lake Gregory community), Central San Bernardino Valley (San Bernardino and Fontana), East San Bernardino Valley (Redlands), Northwest San Bernardino Valley (Upland), San Gorgonio Pass (Banning), and Metropolitan Riverside County (Riverside-Rubidoux), as well as stations in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Bakersfield and Fresno) and the Antelope Valley Air Basin (Lancaster).
2-54

708 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
FIGURE 2-10
2015 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY COMPARED TO OTHER U.S. URBAN AREAS (MAXIMUM POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NAAQS, FLAGGED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE

EXCLUDED)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
South Coast Houston
Metropolitan
Phoenix New York Washington
D.C.

Atlanta Chicago
Max. Concentration, as Percent of Standard
Ozone (2015, 8-hour) Ozone (2008, 8-hour) Ozone (1979, 1-hour) PM10 (1987, 24-hour) PM2.5 (2012, Annual) PM2.5 (2006, 24-hour) NO2 (2010, 1-Hour) SO2 (2010, 1-Hour) Federal
Standard
2-55
709 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 2-11
2015 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY COMPARED TO OTHER CALIFORNIA AIR BASINS (MAXIMUM POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AS PERCENTAGES OF THE NAAQS, FLAGGED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE

EXCLUDED)
As noted previously, maximum pollutant concentrations do not necessarily indicate NAAQS violations and subsequent attainment/nonattainment designation changes, which is determined by the design value form of the NAAQS. Figures 2-12 and 2-13 show the 2013–2015 3-year design values for the Basin compared to other urban areas in the U.S. and California, respectively. While the 2015 maximum ozone concentrations for all the urban areas shown above in Figures 2-10 and 2-11 are over the 2015 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2013–2015 ozone design values in some of these urban areas shown in Figures 2-12 and 2-13 are not in violation of these 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the revoked 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, only the Basin had 1-hour design values over the federal standard for the 2013–2015 period. The design values for annual averaged PM2.5 are over the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Basin, along with Houston, the San Joaquin Valley, and California’s South Central Coast. The 24-hour PM2.5 design values are over the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Basin and the San Joaquin Valley; no other urban areas shown exceeded that standard. PM10 design values are over the standard in Phoenix and the San Joaquin Valley, although some of these may have been influenced by pending exceptional events. The design 2-56
710 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
values for NO2, SO2, and CO (not shown) did not violate the NAAQS for any of the urban areas shown for the 2013–2015 period.

FIGURE 2-12
2015 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY COMPARED TO OTHER U.S. URBAN AREAS (MAXIMUM 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS AS PERCENTAGES OF THE CORRESPONDING NAAQS, FLAGGED

EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
South Coast Houston
Metropolitan
Phoenix New York Washington
D.C.

Atlanta Chicago
Max. Design Value, as Percent of Standard
Ozone (2015, 8-hour) Ozone (2008, 8-hour) Ozone (1979, 1-hour) PM10 (24-hour) PM2.5 (Annual) PM2.5 (24-hour) NO2 (1-Hour) SO2 (1-Hour) Federal
Standard
2-57
711 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 2-13
2015 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AIR QUALITY COMPARED TO OTHER CALIFORNIA AIR BASINS (MAXIMUM 3-YEAR DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS AS PERCENTAGES OF THE CORRESPONDING NAAQS, FLAGGED

EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
South Coast San Joaquin
Valley
San Francisco
Bay Area
Sacramento
Valley
South Central
Coast
San Diego
Max. Design Value, as Percent of Standard
Ozone (2015, 8-hour) Ozone (2008, 8-hour) Ozone (1979, 1-hour) PM10 (24-hour) PM2.5 (Annual) PM2.5 (24-hour) NO2 (1-Hour) SO2 (1-Hour) Federal
Standard
2-58
712 of 2287
Chapter 2: Air Quality and Health Effects
Summary
In the year 2015, the Basin exceeded the most recent federal standards on 40 percent of the days, mainly due to exceedances of ozone and to a lesser extent, PM2.5. The maximum measured concentrations for these pollutants in 2015 were among the highest in the country. In 2015, the Basin exceeded the level of the new 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on 113 days, with all four counties. It exceeded the 2008 and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on 81 and 47 days, respectively. Seven of the top 10 stations in the nation most frequently exceeding the 8-hour federal ozone NAAQS in 2015 were located within the Basin, including stations in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. However, the Basin’s maximum 3-year 8- hour ozone design value wasthe same for the 2012–2014 and 2013–2015 periods and the lowest recorded in the Basin since measurements began in the 1950s. Also, the number of Basin days in 2015 exceeding the current and former 8-hour NAAQS was the lowest recorded since the measurements began.

The Basin exceeded the PM2.5 24-hour standard on 30 days in 2015, including the near-road measurements (25 days for ambient stations only). Significant improvement has been seen over the past decade for both 24-hour and annual PM2.5 concentrations and only one location in the Basin is currently exceeding the 24-hour design value form of the PM2.5 federal standards. However, the 24- hour PM2.5 design value trend in the Basin increased in 2014 and again in 2015. This is due in large part to the extreme drought conditions in Southern California and the associated lack of periodic storm events in the winter months that would bring better dispersion and washout of pollutants. The Basin’s federal 3-year design values for annual PM2.5 have continued to exhibit downward trends through 2015.

The Coachella Valley area in the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin exceeded federal and State standards for ozone and PM10. However, the high PM10 concentrations exceeding the federal 24- hour PM10 standard occurred on days influenced by high-wind natural events, which the District has flagged in the U.S. EPA AQS database such that U.S. EPA will consider excluding such data when determining the NAAQS attainment status in accordance with U.S. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule. For the stations in the Coachella Valley, the federal 3-year design values for 8-hour ozone have continued to exhibit downward trends through 2015.

The NO2 concentrations in Los Angeles County exceeded the recently established short-term (1-hour) federal standard on one day at one location in 2015, but did not exceed the standards anywhere on any other day in the Basin. The 98th percentile form of the federal NO2 standard was not exceeded and the Basin’s attainment status remains intact. The Los Angeles County lead nonattainment area portion of the Basin no longer exceeds the 3-month rolling average lead NAAQS as of the 2013–2015 design value period, including the source-specific monitors. A request to U.S. EPA for re-designation to attainment is being prepared. Maximum concentrations for SO2, CO, and sulfate (measured from PM10) continued to remain below the State and federal standards.
2-59
713 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction
Chapter
3 Base Year and Future Emissions
An inventory of regional emissions from all stationary, area and mobile sources is a requirement for the State Implementation Plan. Base year emissions are projected into the future using approved growth factors for each source category. These emissions assist in projecting the level of reductions needed to attain standards in the future. 714 of 2287 In This Chapter
 Introduction 3-1
Emissions in the base year and attainment years
 Emission Inventories 3-1
Stationary sources, mobile sources, and uncertainties
in the inventory
 Base Year Emissions 3-10
2012 emissions inventory
715 of 2287
 Future Emissions 3-17
Demographic growth and baseline emission
projections
 Impact of Growth 3-27
Growth contribution to future emissions
 Top Ten Source Categories 3-29
The most significant emission sources
716 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
Introduction
This chapter summarizes criteria pollutant emissions that occurred in the Basin during the 2012 base year as well as projected emissions for the years 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031. A more detailed description of emissions and methodologies is presented in Appendix III. The 2012 base year emissions inventory reflects actual and estimated emissions subject to adopted regulations with current compliance dates as of 2012, whereas future baseline emissions inventories are based on economic projections and adopted regulations with both current and future compliance dates. A list of District and CARB rules and regulations that are part of the base year and future year baseline emissions inventories is presented in Appendix III. The District continues to implement rules that are incorporated in the 2016 AQMP future baseline emissions inventories.

The emissions inventory is divided into two major source classifications: stationary and mobile sources.

The 2012 base year point source emissions are based principally on reported data from facilities using the District’s Annual Emissions Reporting Program. The area source emissions are estimated jointly by CARB and the District using established inventory methods. The on-road emissions are calculated using CARB’s EMFAC 2014 model and the travel activity data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from their adopted 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). CARB provides emission inventories for off-road equipment which includes construction and mining equipment, industrial and commercial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, agricultural equipment, ocean-going vessels, commercial harbor craft, locomotives, cargo handling equipment, pleasure craft, and recreational vehicles. Aircraft emissions are based on an updated analysis by the District, developed in conjunction with the airports in the region. The future emission forecasts are primarily based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SCAG. In addition, emission reductions resulting from District regulations amended or adopted by December 2015 and CARB regulations adopted by November 2015 are included in the future baseline projections.

This chapter summarizes the major components of developing the base year and future baseline inventories. More detailed information, such as CARB’s and the District’s emission reductions resulting from adopted rules and regulations since the 2012 AQMP, growth factors, and demographic trends, are presented in Appendix III. In addition, the top source categories contributing to the 2012, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031 emission inventories are identified in this chapter. An understanding of the highest emitting source categories leads to the identification of potentially more effective control strategies for improving air quality.

Emission Inventories
Two inventories are prepared for the 2016 AQMP for the purpose of regulatory and SIP performance tracking, including transportation conformity 1: an annual average inventory and a summer planning inventory. Baseline emissions data presented in this chapter are based on average annual daily 1 Transportation conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities “conform” to the purpose of the SIP. More details are provided in Chapter 4. 3-1

717 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
emissions (i.e., total annual emissions divided by 365 days) and seasonally adjusted summer planning inventory emissions. The 2016 AQMP uses annual average day emissions to estimate the costeffectiveness of PM2.5 control measures and to perform PM2.5 modeling and analysis. The summer planning inventory emissions are developed to capture the emission levels during the high ozone season and are used to perform ozone modeling and analysis, estimate the cost-effectiveness of ozone control measures, and to report emission reduction progress as required by the federal and California Clean Air Acts.

Detailed information regarding the emissions inventory development for the base year and future years, the emissions by major source category in the base year and future baseline emission inventories are presented in Appendix III. Attachments A and B to Appendix III list the annual average and summer planning emissions by major source category for 2012, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031.

Attachment C to Appendix III has the top VOC and NOx point source categories that emitted greater than or equal to 10 tons per year in 2012. Attachment D to Appendix III contains the on-road emissions by vehicle class and pollutant. Attachment E to Appendix III shows emissions associated with the combustion of diesel fuel for various source categories.

Stationary Sources
Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources are permitted facilities with one or more emission sources at an identified location (e.g., power plants, refineries). These facilities generally have annual emissions of 4 tons or more of either Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Sulfur Oxide (SOx), or total Particulate Matter (PM), or annual emissions of over 100 tons of Carbon Monoxide (CO). Facilities are required to report their criteria pollutant emissions pursuant to Rule 301 and selected air toxics to the District on an annual basis, subject to audit, if any of these thresholds are exceeded. The 2012 annual reported emissions are used to update the stationary source inventory.

Area sources consist of many small emission sources (e.g., residential water heaters, architectural coatings, consumer products and permitted sources that are smaller than the above thresholds) which are distributed across the region and are not required to individually report their emissions. There are about 400 area source categories for which emission estimates are jointly developed by CARB and the District. The emissions from these sources are estimated using activity information and emission factors.

Activity data are usually obtained from survey data or scientific reports (e.g., Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports for fuel consumption other than natural gas fuel, Southern California Gas Company for natural gas consumption, paint suppliers under Rule 314 and District databases). The emission factors are based on rule compliance factors, source tests, manufacturer’s product or technical specification data, default factors (mostly from AP-42, U.S. EPA’s published emission factor compilation), or weighted emission factors derived from the point source facilities’ annual emissions reports.

Additionally, the emissions over a given area may be calculated using socioeconomic data.

Appendix III has more detail regarding emissions from specific source categories such as architectural coatings, dairy cattle, oil and gas production operations, gasoline dispensing facilities, and green waste composting. Since the 2012 AQMP was finalized, new area source inventory updates include:
1-3-2
718 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
• Architectural Coatings Category: Over 60 area sources in this category were updated based on information provided as part of SCAQMD Rule 314 – “Fees for Architectural Coatings” annual reports.
• Oil and Gas Production Category: The emission estimation methodology for this area source category was revised to incorporate U.S. EPA’s oil and gas production inventory model modified with California-specific emission factors and technologies. • Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Category: The emission estimation methodology for this area source category was revised to include CARB staff’s updated emission factors and activity data.
• Dairy Cattle: Ammonia and VOC emissions from dairy farms were revised based on the animal head count data reported to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. • LPG Combustion Categories: The emissions from this category were revised based on the LPG consumption estimation for the Basin. The fraction of California LPG use in the Basin was estimated based on GHG data reported to the CARB. The statewide total LPG consumption was retrieved from State Energy Data (2013).
• Commercial and Industrial Natural Gas Combustion Categories: 2012 actual natural gas consumption data were used, instead of the projection from the 2012 AQMP. • Composting Waste Disposal: Ammonia and VOC emissions expected from compostable mulch were added in this category.
• REgional CLean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) NOx emissions: The future baseline was revised to include the 12 tons per day of RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs) reduction by December 2022 that was approved in December 2015.

Mobile Sources
Mobile sources consist of two subcategories: on-road sources and off-road sources. On-road vehicle emissions are calculated with CARB’s EMFAC 2014 model and the travel activity data provided by SCAG from their adopted 2016 RTP/SCS. Spatial distribution data from Caltrans’ Direct Travel Impact Model (DTIM4) are used to place the emissions at the proper time and place. Off-road emissions are calculated using CARB’s category specific inventory models.

On-Road
CARB’s EMFAC 2014 model has undergone extensive revisions from the previous version (EMFAC 2011) to make it more user-friendly, flexible, and to allow incorporation of larger amounts of data demanded by the current regulatory and planning processes. In addition to the model structural changes, other changes include:
• Revision of heavy-duty diesel (HD Diesel) truck emission rates: The emission factors for heavy heavy-duty diesel trucks were also updated using new test data on newer trucks (Model Year 2007 and newer) that more accurately represent the effectiveness of the control equipment used to meet the more stringent 2007 and 2010 emission standards. • Incorporation of natural gas vehicles for select vehicle classes: Emission factors for natural gas powered solid waste collection vehicles and urban buses are now included in EMFAC 2014 as these classes of vehicles have sufficient penetration of natural gas engines to warrant separate treatment.
3-3
719 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
• Accounting for federal and California regulations and standards adopted post-2010: The adopted regulations and standards include the State’s Advanced Clean Car Program, the April 2014 amendment to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation and the federal HD Greenhouse Gas Regulation.
• Socio-econometric modeling of population and VMT: EMFAC 2014 incorporates the use of socioeconomic regression model forecasting methods to predict new vehicle sales and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) growth trends. This allows the use of State and national economic indicators, fuel prices, and regional human population and vehicle ownership characteristics as parameters to more accurately predict vehicle sales and VMT trends.

More detailed information on the changes incorporated in EMFAC 2014 can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm.

Figure 3-1 compares the on-road emissions estimated using EMFAC 2011 in the 2012 AQMP and EMFAC 2014 used in the 2016 AQMP, respectively for milestone years 2012, 2023, and 2031. It should be noted that the comparison for 2012 reflects changes in methodologies, whereas the comparison for 2023 and 2031 also includes adopted rules and updated growth projections since the release of EMFAC 2011, which was the basis of the 2012 AQMP on-road emissions.

For 2012, EMFAC 2014’s newer methodologies show higher emissions of NOx and VOCs. For the future years 2023 and 2031, in general, the emissions are lower in EMFAC 2014 as compared to EMFAC 2011.

The lower emissions can be attributed to additional rules and regulations, more stringent standards, and updates to the heavy-duty emission factors.

Also evident in Figure 3-1 is the change in the rate of emission reductions. The rate of change in the emissions in the early years (2012 to 2023) is significantly larger than that shown further in the later years (2023–2031). This is due to the implementation of the rules and regulations, most of which will be fully implemented by 2023 (e.g., CARB’s Truck and Bus rule requires all trucks to meet the 2010 standards by 2023). The effect of the rules and regulations are significant, showing reductions of about 70 percent NOx emissions and close to 60 percent VOC emissions between 2012 and 2023, even with increases in fleet population. More modest reductions are predicted from continued fleet turnover, but fleet growth is beginning to outpace the emissions benefits of fleet turnover in the later years. Further emission reductions will require fleets to adopt the use of even cleaner equipment than the current standards require.
1-3-4
720 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-1
COMPARISON OF ON-ROAD EMISSIONS ESTIMATED USING EMFAC 2011 IN THE 2012 AQMP AND EMFAC 2014 IN THE 2016 AQMP. VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS REPRESENT SUMMER PLANNING AND SOX & PM2.5 ARE ANNUAL AVERAGE INVENTORY.
138.4
285.2

2.1 14.6
162.4
293.1

2.01 14.4

0.0 50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
VOC NOx SOx PM2.5
Emissions (tons/day)
2012
2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP

69.5 116.7

1.9 11.1

67.7 88.0

1.7 10.2

0.0 50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
VOC NOx SOx PM2.5
Emissions (tons/day)
2023
2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP

54.0 92.7

1.9 11.9

49.5 65.0

1.4 9.9

0.0 50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
VOC NOx SOx PM2.5
Emissions (tons/day)
2031
2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP
3-5
721 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Off-Road
Emissions from off-road vehicle categories are primarily based on estimated activity levels and emission factors. Separate emission estimation models have been developed for the many categories of off-road equipment. More information on these models can be found at the following link:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm. Several of these models have been updated since the release of the 2012 AQMP. The major updates include:
• Locomotives: The emissions model methodology for the freight locomotive category was completely revised. In addition, activity was updated using data from the Surface Transportation Board and Federal Highway Administration’s Freight Analysis Framework.

Population information was derived from the Association of American Railroads’ population data.
• Ocean Going Vessels: New lower growth projections were developed and incorporated into the model using more recent information from the Federal Highway Administration’s Freight Analysis Framework model and other forecasts performed for the San Pedro Bay Ports. NOx control factor calculations were updated to more appropriately represent the engine Tier levels.
• Commercial Harbor Craft: The vessel turnover rate methodology was improved to better reflect the observed age distribution. A more representative reduced turnover rate is used, which improves consistency with other off-road emissions model methodologies. • Pleasure Craft and Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles: New survey information and DMV data were used to update the population and activity, and new emissions testing data were used to update the emission factors in newly developed models for these two categories. • Cargo Handling Equipment: The model was updated to use growth factors consistent with those developed for ocean going vessels.
• Farm Equipment: The inventory was completely revised resulting in a new inventory based on updated equipment population, equipment age distribution, activity, load factors, and turnover practices.
• Aircraft: The aircraft emissions inventory is updated for the 2012 base year based on the 2012 aircraft activity data and latest calculation methodologies. A total of 43 airports were identified as having aircraft operations within the District boundaries including commercial air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military aircraft operations. The sources of activity data included airport operators and Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) databases. The emissions calculation methodology was based on the application of FAA’s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) model for commercial airports with detailed aircraft activity data (by aircraft make and model). For other airports and aircraft types (e.g., general aviation, air taxi, military), the total number of aircraft operations was used in conjunction with the U.S. EPA’s latest average emission factors by major aircraft type (e.g., general aviation, air taxi, military). For commercial air carrier operations, SCAG’s 2040 aircraft operations forecasts from the SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was used. 1-3-6
722 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
The revised 2016 AQMP incorporated the 2040 emissions forecast (based on SCAG’s latest forecasts) with interim years interpolated between 2012 and 2040.

Figure 3-2 shows a comparison between the off-road baseline emissions in the 2012 AQMP and the 2016 AQMP for the milestone years 2012, 2023, and 2031. Overall, the updates to the off-road categories result in lower emissions than those used in the 2012 AQMP. It should be noted that the comparison for 2012 reflects changes in methodology, but the comparison for the rest of the years also includes adopted rules and updated growth projections since the release of off-road inventory in the 2012 AQMP. Similar to what is shown for the on-road category, the rate of reductions in emissions of NOx and VOC is significantly larger in early years (2012 to 2023) compared to the rate seen in the later years (2023 to 2031). This is the result of the rules and regulations adopted at the State and federal levels for most of the off-road categories. As most will be fully implemented by 2023, only modest reductions will be achieved as a result of continued fleet turnover beyond 2023. Without additional rules or programs for further reductions, growth in emissions from increases in vehicle population outweighs the emissions benefits associated with fleet turnover to newer equipment. As projected for the on-road fleet, further emission reductions will require off-road fleets to use even cleaner equipment than current standards require. 3-7
723 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-2
COMPARISON OF OFF-ROAD EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2012 AQMP AND 2016 AQMP.

VOC & NOX – SUMMER PLANNING; SOX & PM2.5 – ANNUAL AVERAGE INVENTORY 137.7
168.5

6.3 9.0
126.3
164.6

6.1 8.1

0.0 50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
VOC NOx SOx PM2.5
Emissions (tons/day)
2012
2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP
107.7
132.9

5.8 6.6

89.9 117.1

5.6 5.6

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
VOC NOx SOx PM2.5
Emissions (tons/day)
2023
2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP

95.9 119.8

7.7 5.8

80.6 99.6

6.7 5.2

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
VOC NOx SOx PM2.5
Emissions (tons/day)
2031
2012 AQMP 2016 AQMP
1-3-8
724 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
Uncertainties in the Emissions Inventory
An effective AQMP relies on a complete and accurate emissions inventory. Over the years, significant improvements have been made to quantify emission sources for which control measures are developed.

Increased use of continuous monitoring and source testing has contributed to the improvement in point source inventories. Technical assistance to facilities and auditing of reported emissions by the District have also improved the accuracy of the emissions inventory. Area source inventories that rely on average emission factors and regional activities have inherent uncertainty. Industry-specific surveys and source-specific studies during rule development have provided much-needed refinement to these emissions estimates. Mobile source inventories are also continuously updated and improved. As described earlier, many improvements are included in the on-road mobile source model EMFAC 2014, which estimates emissions from trucks, automobiles, and buses. Improvements and updates are included in the off-road models for locomotives, ocean going vessels, commercial harbor craft, pleasure craft and off-highway recreational vehicles, cargo handling equipment, and farm equipment. Overall, the 2016 AQMP inventory is based on the most current data and methodologies, resulting in the most accurate inventory available.

Relative to future growth, there are many challenges inherent in making accurate projections, such as where vehicle trips will occur, the distribution between various modes of transportation (such as trucks and trains), as well as estimates for population growth and the number and type of jobs. Forecasts are made with the best information available; nevertheless, there is uncertainty in emissions projections.

AQMP updates are generally developed every three to four years, thereby allowing for frequent updates and improvements to the inventories.

Gridded Emissions
For air quality modeling purposes, the domain extends to Southern Kern County in the north, the Arizona border to the east, northern Mexico to the south and more than 100 miles offshore to the west. The modeling area is divided into a grid system comprised of 4 km by 4 km grid cells. Both stationary and mobile source emissions are allocated to individual grid cells within this system. In general, the modeling emissions data features daily emissions. Variations in temperature, hours of operation, speed of motor vehicles, or other factors are considered in developing gridded motor vehicle emissions. The “gridded” emissions data used for both PM2.5 and ozone modeling applications differ from the annual average day or planning inventory emission data in two respects: (1) the modeling region covers larger geographic areas than the Basin; and (2) emissions represent day-specific instead of average or seasonal conditions.

Emission inventories are generated for both the PM2.5 and ozone modeling applications. For PM2.5, the annual average day is used, which represents the characteristic of emissions that contribute to yearround particulate impacts. The summer planning inventory focuses on the warmer months (May through October) when evaporative VOC emissions and more sunlight, play an important role in ozone formation.
3-9
725 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Base Year Emissions
2012 Emission Inventory
Table 3-1A compares the summer planning emissions between the 2012 base year in the 2016 AQMP and the projected 2012 emissions in the Final 2012 AQMP by major source category for VOC and NOx. Table 3-1B compares the annual average emissions between the 2012 base year in the 2016 AQMP and the projected 2012 emissions in the Final 2012 AQMP for SOx and PM2.5. It should be noted that the comparison for 2012 reflects updatesin methodology, differences between growth projections and actual data, and adopted rules since the release of the 2012 AQMP. Specifically, the growth projection employed in the 2012 AQMP did not fully capture the impact of the economic recession which occurred between 2008 and 2010.

Overall, there is a minor net decrease in VOC emissions in the 2016 AQMP inventory as compared to the 2012 AQMP projections. Estimates of stationary source VOC emissions have decreased by approximately 12 percent, but mobile VOC source emissions have increased by 5 percent. NOx emissions remain unchanged between the 2016 AQMP inventory and the 2012 projection. As in the VOC category, stationary source NOx emissions have been revised downward and mobile source emissions have been revised slightly upward. Of note in the stationary source categories are the emission changes associated with the architectural coatings, RECLAIM categories, natural gas and LPG combustion sources, and farming operations. Architectural coatings emissions were updated for the 2016 AQMP using information provided as part of SCAQMD Rule 314 – “Fees for Architectural Coatings” annual reports, resulting in the lower emission estimate. The RECLAIM emissions cap was used to project the NOx emissions in the 2012 AQMP inventory, while in 2012, the actual emissions were lower than the cap by 7 tons per day (TPD). Use of additional actual reported information in lieu of projected emissions (used in the 2012 AQMP to estimate the 2012 emissions) explain the majority of the remaining emission differences. Refer to Appendix III for details.

For the mobile source category, the updates described earlier to the on-road emissions model EMFAC 2014 resulted in the 17 percent and 3 percent increase in VOC and NOx emissions, respectively. Updates to several of the off-road category emission estimates resulted in the 8 percent decrease in VOC emissions and a modest 2 percent decrease in NOx emissions. Updates were completed for locomotives, ocean going vessels, cargo handling equipment, commercial harbor craft, farming equipment, pleasure craft, and off-highway recreational vehicles.

Estimates of SOx emissions are 23 percent lower in the 2016 AQMP emissions inventory than 2012 projections. This is largely due to the difference in the use of actual reported information in lieu of projected emissions in the RECLAIM sources. Estimates of direct PM2.5 from stationary and mobile sources are modestly lower in the 2016 AQMP leading to a decrease of 7 percent. This revised estimation is largely due to changes in the emissions estimates from miscellaneous stationary processes and decreases in off-road vehicle emissions.

Table 3-2 shows the 2012 annual average and summer planning emissions inventory by major source category. Stationary sources are subdivided into point (e.g., chemical manufacturing, petroleum production, and electric utilities) and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, residential water heaters, 1-3-10
726 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
consumer products, and permitted sources smaller than the emission reporting threshold – generally 4 tpy). Mobile sources consist of on-road (e.g., passenger cars and heavy-duty trucks) and off-road sources (e.g., trains and ships). Entrained road dust is also included.

Figure 3-3 characterizes relative contributions by stationary and mobile source categories. On- and offroad sources continue to be major contributors for each of the five pollutants. Overall, total mobile source emissions account for almost 60 percent of the VOC and 90 percent of the NOx emissions for these two ozone-forming pollutants and 95 percent of the CO emissions. The on-road mobile category alone contributes over 30 percent of the VOC and 56 percent of the NOx emissions. For directly emitted PM2.5, mobile sources represent 34 percent of the emissions with another 13 percent due to vehiclerelated entrained road dust. Stationary sources emit the majority of the SOx emissions with the point source category contributing 50 percent of the SOx emissions in the Basin. Area sources play a major role in VOC emissions, emitting about 3.5 times more than point sources. Area sources, including sources such as commercial cooking, are the predominant source of directly emitted PM2.5 emissions (42 percent).

Figure 3-4 shows the fraction of the 2012 inventory by responsible agency for VOC, NOx, SOx, and directly emitted PM2.5. U.S. EPA and CARB have primary authority to regulate emissions from mobile sources.

U.S. EPA’s authority applies to aircraft, locomotives, ocean going vessels, and some categories of on- and off-road mobile equipment. CARB has authority over the remainder of the mobile sources, and consumer products. SCAQMD has authority over most area sources and all point sources. As can be seen in Figure 3-4, most of the NOx and VOC emissions in the District are from sources that fall under the primary jurisdiction of U.S. EPA and CARB. For example, almost 90 percent of the NOx and over 75 percent of the VOC emissions are from sources primarily under CARB and U.S. EPA control. Conversely, 56 percent of the SOx emissions and 66 percent of the directly emitted PM2.5 emissions are from sources under SCAQMD control. NOx and VOC are important precursors to ozone and PM2.5 formation, and SOx along with directly emitted PM2.5, contribute to the region’s PM2.5 nonattainment challenges. This illustrates that actions at the local, State, and federal level are needed to ensure the region attains the federal ambient air quality standards.
3-11
727 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-1A
Comparison of VOC and NOx Emissions By Major Source Category of 2012 Base Year in 2016 AQMP and Projected 2012 in Final 2012 AQMP Summer Planning Inventory (tpd1
)

SOURCE CATEGORY
2012
AQMP
2016
AQMP
%
Change
2012
AQMP
2016
AQMP
%
Change
VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 12.9 11.4 -12% 29.4 27.9 -5%
Waste Disposal 12.1 14.1 17% 1.5 2.3 50%
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 41.7 35.6 -15% 0 0 0%
Petroleum Production and
Marketing 40.2 29.2 -27% 0 0 0%
Industrial Processes 13.8 10.8 -21% 0 0 0%
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 86.6 86.5 0% 0 0 0%
Architectural Coatings 21.5 13.3 -38% 0 0 0%
Others 2.0 2.4 17% 0 0 0%
Misc. Processes 9.7 7.8 -20% 15.5 14.5 -6%
RECLAIM SOURCES 0 0 0% 27.2 19.6 -28%
Total Stationary Sources 240 211 -12% 74 65 -13%

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 138.4 162.4 17% 285.2 293.1 3%
Off-Road Vehicles 137.7 126.3 -8% 168.5 164.6 -2%
Total Mobile Sources 276 289 5% 454 458 1%
TOTAL 516 500 -3% 528 522 -1%
1 Values may not sum due to rounding errors
1-3-12
728 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
TABLE 3-1B
Comparison of SOx and PM2.5 Emissions By Major Source Category of 2012 Base Year in 2016 AQMP and Projected 2012 in 2012 AQMP Annual Average (tpd1
)

SOURCE CATEGORY
2012
AQMP
2016
AQMP
%
Change
2012
AQMP
2016
AQMP
%
Change
SOx PM2.5

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 1.9 1.9 -1% 5.6 5.6 1%
Waste Disposal 0.4 0.5 20% 0.2 0.2 -13%
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 0 0 0% 1.5 1.4 -5%
Petroleum Production and
Marketing 0.6 0.4 -26% 1.6 1.5 -6%
Industrial Processes 0.02 0.1 400% 6.7 6.4 -6%
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Architectural Coatings 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Others 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Misc. Processes 1.0 0.5 -47% 32.5 28.8 -11%
RECLAIM SOURCES 11.8 6.9 -42% 0 0 0%
Total Stationary Sources 16 10 -34% 48 44 -9%

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 2.1 2.0 -2% 14.6 14.4 -1%
Off-Road Vehicles 6.3 6.1 -2% 9.0 8.1 -10%
Total Mobile Sources 8 8 -2% 24 23 -5%
TOTAL 24 18 -23% 72 66 -7%
1 Values may not sum due to rounding errors
3-13
729 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-2
Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2012 Base Year Average Annual Day and Summer Planning (tpd1
)

SOURCE CATEGORY
Annual Average Summer
Planning
VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 11 28 49 2 6 9 11 28
Waste Disposal 13 2 1 0 0 5 14 2
Cleaning and Surface
Coatings 34 0 0 0 1 0 36 0
Petroleum Production and
Marketing 29 0 5 0 2 0 29 0
Industrial Processes 10 0 0 0 6 9 11 0
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 87 0 0 0 0 0 87 0
Architectural Coatings 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0
Others 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
Misc. Processes 13 21 54 1 29 38 8 15
RECLAIM SOURCES 0 19 0 7 0 0 0 20
Total Stationary Sources 212 70 109 10 44 63 211 65

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 158 317 1328 2 14 18 162 293
Off-Road Vehicles 100 153 686 6 8 0 126 165
Total Mobile Sources 258 470 2014 8 23 18 289 458
TOTAL 470 540 2123 18 66 81 500 522
1 Values may not sum due to rounding errors 2 Includes entrained road dust 1-3-14
730 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-3
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION BY SOURCE CATEGORY TO 2012 EMISSION INVENTORY (VOC & NOX – SUMMER PLANNING; CO, SOX, & PM2.5 – ANNUAL AVERAGE INVENTORY VALUES ARE ROUNDED TO

NEAREST INTEGER AND MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING)
point, 6%
area,
17%
Architectural
Coating &
Consumer
Product,20%
on-road ,
33%
off-road,
25%
VOC Emissions: 500 tons/day
point, 5%
area, 7%
on-road ,
56%
off-road,
32%
NOx Emissions: 522 tons/day
point, 1% area, 4%
on-road ,
63%
off-road,
32%
CO Emissions: 2123 tons/day
point,
50%
area, 6%
on-road ,
11%
off-road,
33%
SOx Emissions: 18 tons/day
point,
12%
area,
42% on-road ,
22%
off-road,
12%
road
dust,
13%
Directly Emitted PM2.5 Emissions:
66 tons/day
3-15
731 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-4
2012 EMISSION INVENTORY AGENCY PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
(VOC & NOX – SUMMER PLANNING; SOX, & PM2.5 – ANNUAL AVERAGE INVENTORY. VALUES ARE ROUNDED TO

NEAREST INTEGER AND MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING)
U.S. EPA,
4%
CARB, 73%

SCAQMD,
23%
VOC Emissions: 500 tons/day
U.S. EPA,
19%
CARB,
69%
SCAQMD
12%
NOx Emissions: 522 tons/day
U.S. EPA,
33%
CARB, 11%

SCAQMD,
56%
SOx Emissions: 18 tons/day
U.S. EPA,
6%
CARB,
28%
SCAQMD
66%
Directly Emitted PM2.5
Emissions: 66 tons/day
1-3-16
732 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
Future Emissions
Inventory Development
Inventories were developed for 2012, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031. Year 2012 is the base-year for the attainment demonstrations. Years 2023 and 2031 are the attainment years for the federal 8-hour ozone standards of 80 ppb (revoked) and 75 ppb, respectively. The 2022 inventory was developed to show attainment for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard (120 ppb). The 2019 and 2025 inventories were used to demonstrate attainment for the federal 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards, respectively.

Future-year stationary source emissions are divided into RECLAIM and non-RECLAIM emissions. Future NOx and SOx emissions from RECLAIM sources are estimated based on their allocations as specified by District Rule 2002 –Allocations for NOx and SOx. The forecasts for non-RECLAIM emissions were derived using: (1) emissions from the 2012 base year, (2) expected controls after implementation of District rules adopted by December 2015 and CARB rules adopted as of November 2015, and (3) activity growth in various source categories between the base and future years.

Demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry), developed by SCAG for their 2016 RTP/SCS, were used. Industry growth factors for 2012, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025, 2026, 2031, and 2037 are also provided by SCAG, and interim years are calculated by linear interpolation. Table 3-3 summarizes key socioeconomic parameters used in the 2016 AQMP for emissions inventory development.

In this chapter, the inventories for 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031, the 8-hour ozone, 1-hour ozone, along with the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 attainment target years are discussed. 3-17
733 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-3
Baseline Demographic Forecasts in the 2016 AQMP and the Final 2012 AQMP CATEGORY 2012 2023
2023 %
GROWTH
FROM 2012
2031
2031 %
GROWTH
FROM 2012
Population
(Millions) 15.9 17.1 7% 17.9 12%
Housing Units
(Millions) 5.1 5.7 10% 6.0 16%
Total Employment
(Millions) 6.7 7.8 16% 8.2 23%
Daily VMT
(Millions) 380 407 7% 409 8%
Current forecasts indicate that this region will experience a population growth of 7 percent between 2012 and 2023, with a 7 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a population growth of 12 percent by the year 2031 with an 8 percent increase in VMT.

As compared to the projections in the 2012 AQMP, the current 2023 projections in the 2016 AQMP predict a population of about 200,000 fewer people (2.8 percent less), 100,000 more total employment (1.2 percent more), and 11 million miles more in the daily VMT forecast (2.7 percent more).

Summary of Future Baseline Emissions
To illustrate trends in the future baseline emissions inventories, emissions data by source categories (point, area, on-road mobile and off-road mobile sources) and by pollutant are presented in Tables 3-4A through 3-4E for the years 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031. Baseline inventories are projected future emissions that reflect already adopted rules and regulations, but not additional controls proposed in the 2016 AQMP. This is in contrast to the 2012 base year emission inventory, which captures the actual 2012 emissions and is used as a basis for the projection of future inventories. Tables 3-4 provide annual average, as well as summer planning inventories. Emissions inventories for 2021, the “moderate” annual PM2.5 attainment deadline and milestone years for the Reasonable Further Progress (RTP) analysis (2024, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030) can be found in Appendix III.

Without any additional control measures, VOC and NOx emissions are expected to decrease due to existing regulations, such as controls for on- and off-road equipment, new vehicle standards, and the RECLAIM program. However, consistent with what was shown earlier with the mobile source categories, the emissions of SOx and PM2.5 show increases after 2022, when most of the rules and regulations will be fully implemented. Increases in emissions due to increase in population and activity outpace the emission reductions from introducing newer and cleaner equipment and vehicles. Figure 3-5 illustrates the relative contribution to the 2031 inventory by source category. A comparison of Figures 3-3 and 3- 1-3-18
734 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
5 indicates that the on-road mobile category continues to be a major contributor to CO and NOx emissions. However, because of the implementation of most of the mobile source rules and regulations by 2023, 2031 on-road mobile sources account for much less of the VOC, NOx, and CO emissions as compared to 2012: about 14 percent of total VOC emissions compared to 33 percent in 2012; about 30 percent of total NOx emissions compared to 56 percent in 2012; and about 26 percent of total CO emissions compared to 63 percent in 2012. For directly emitted PM2.5, mobile sources will represent 23 percent of the emissions with another 14 percent due to vehicle-related entrained road dust, a reduction from the mobile source contribution in the base-year. It is projected that stationary sources will emit the majority of the SOx emissions with the point source category, contributing 55 percent of the SOx emissions in the Basin. In 2031, area sources will play even a larger role in VOC emissions, emitting more than point sources and mobile sources combined. Area sources will become the major contributor to VOC emissions from 37 percent in 2012 to 55 percent in 2031 and are projected to remain as the predominant source of directly emitted PM2.5 emissions (49 percent). See Figures 3-7 through 3-30 for the highest-ranking source categories for 2012, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031.

Figure 3-6 shows the fraction of the 2031 inventory by responsible agency for VOC, NOx, SOx, and directly emitted PM2.5. In 2031, a larger fraction of the NOx and VOC emissions will fall under the SCAQMD control. However, the majority of VOC and NOx emissions will remain primarily under CARB and EPA jurisdiction. The fraction of SOx emissions that fall under SCAQMD control will remain largely unchanged from the 2012 base-year inventory. However, the increasing contribution of area and point sources towards direct PM2.5 emissions in 2031 will result in a larger fraction of emissions falling under SCAQMD control.
3-19
735 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-5
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION BY SOURCE CATEGORY TO 2031 EMISSION INVENTORY (VOC & NOX – SUMMER PLANNING; CO, SOX, & PM2.5 – ANNUAL AVERAGE INVENTORY - VALUES ARE ROUNDED TO

NEAREST INTEGER AND MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING)
point, 9%
area, 25%
Architectural Coating &
Consumer Product,
30%
on-road ,
14%
off-road,
22%
VOC Emissions: 362 tons/day
point,
11%
area,
12%
on-road ,
30%
off-road,
47%
NOx Emissions: 214 tons/day
point, 3%
area, 7%
on-road ,
26%
off-road,
64%
CO Emissions: 1118 tons/day
point,
48%
area, 7%
on-road ,
8%
off-road,
37%
SOx Emissions: 18 tons/day
point,
14%
area,
49%
on-road ,
15%
off-road,
8%
road
dust,
14%
Directly Emitted PM2.5 Emissions:
65 tons/day
1-3-20
736 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-6
2031 EMISSION INVENTORY AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY
(VOC & NOX – SUMMER PLANNING; SOX & PM2.5 – ANNUAL AVERAGE INVENTORY. VALUES ARE ROUNDED TO

NEAREST INTEGER AND MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING)
U.S. EPA,
5%
CARB, 59%

SCAQMD,
36%
VOC Emissions: 362 tons/day
U.S. EPA,
30%
CARB,
48%
SCAQMD
21%
NOx Emissions: 214 tons/day
U.S. EPA,
37%
CARB, 8%

SCAQMD,
55%
SOx Emissions: 18 tons/day
U.S. EPA,
5%
CARB,
18%
SCAQMD
77%
Directly Emitted PM2.5
Emissions: 65 tons/day
3-21
737 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-4A
Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2019 Baseline (24-hr PM2.5 attainment year) Average Annual Day and Summer Planning (tpd1
)

SOURCE CATEGORY

ANNUAL AVERAGE
SUMMER

PLANNING
VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 11 23 48 2 6 9 11 23
Waste Disposal 14 2 1 1 0 6 16 2
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 42 0 0 0 2 0 43 0
Petroleum Production and Marketing 21 0 5 0 2 0 21 0
Industrial Processes 12 0 1 0 7 9 13 0
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 88 0 0 0 0 0 88 0
Architectural Coatings 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Others 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
Misc. Processes2 13 14 56 1 31 35 7 10
RECLAIM Sources3 0 23 0 6 0 0 0 23
Total Stationary Sources 214 62 111 10 47 60 213 59

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 82 167 639 2 11 14 86 155
Off-Road Vehicles 79 124 697 5 6 0 98 133
Total Mobile Sources 161 291 1336 7 17 14 184 289
TOTAL 376 353 1447 17 64 74 398 347
1 Values are rounded to nearest integer and may not sum due to rounding 2 Includes entrained road dust 3 Includes 2015 RECLAIM NOx shaves
1-3-22
738 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
TABLE 3-4B
Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2022 Baseline (1-hr ozone attainment year) Average Annual Day and Summer Planning (tpd1)

SOURCE CATEGORY
Annual Average Summer
Planning
VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 11 22 49 2 6 9 11 22
Waste Disposal 15 2 1 1 0 6 17 3
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 45 0 0 0 2 0 47 0
Petroleum Production and Marketing 20 0 5 0 2 0 20 0
Industrial Processes 12 0 1 0 7 9 13 0
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 90 0 0 0 0 0 90 0
Architectural Coatings 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Others 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
Misc. Processes2 13 13 56 1 31 35 7 10
RECLAIM Sources3 0 15 0 6 0 0 0 15
Total Stationary Sources 220 53 112 10 48 60 220 50

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 68 125 498 2 10 13 71 117
Off-Road Vehicles 74 113 715 5 6 0 92 120
Total Mobile Sources 142 238 1213 7 16 13 163 237
TOTAL 362 290 1325 17 64 73 383 287
1 Values are rounded to nearest integer and may not sum due to rounding 2 Includes entrained road dust 3 Includes 2015 RECLAIM NOx shaves
3-23
739 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-4C
Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2023 Baseline (1997 8-hr ozone attainment year) Average Annual Day and Summer Planning (tpd1)

SOURCE CATEGORY
Annual Average Summer
Planning
VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 11 22 49 2 6 9 11 22
Waste Disposal 15 2 1 1 0 6 17 3
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 46 0 0 0 2 0 47 0
Petroleum Production and Marketing 20 0 5 0 2 0 20 0
Industrial Processes 13 0 1 0 8 9 14 0
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 90 0 0 0 0 0 90 0
Architectural Coatings 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Others 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
Misc. Processes2 13 13 56 1 32 35 7 10
RECLAIM Sources3 0 15 0 6 0 0 0 15
Total Stationary Sources 222 52 112 10 48 60 220 50

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 65 94 465 2 10 13 68 88
Off-Road Vehicles 73 110 721 6 6 0 90 117
Total Mobile Sources 137 204 1186 7 16 13 158 205
TOTAL 359 257 1298 17 64 72 379 255
1 Values are rounded to nearest integer and may not sum due to rounding 2 Includes entrained road dust 3 Includes 2015 RECLAIM NOx shaves
1-3-24
740 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
TABLE 3-4D
Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2025 Baseline (annual PM2.5 attainment year) Average Annual Day and Summer Planning (tpd1)

SOURCE CATEGORY
Annual Average Summer
Planning
VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 11 22 50 2 6 9 11 22
Waste Disposal 16 2 1 1 0 6 18 3
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 47 0 0 0 2 0 49 0
Petroleum Production and Marketing 19 0 5 0 2 0 20 0
Industrial Processes 13 0 1 0 8 9 14 0
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 91 0 0 0 0 0 91 0
Architectural Coatings 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
Others 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
Misc. Processes2 13 13 56 1 32 35 7 9
RECLAIM Sources3 0 15 0 6 0 0 0 15
Total Stationary Sources 224 52 112 10 49 60 223 49

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 58 85 403 2 10 12 61 79
Off-Road Vehicles 71 104 731 6 5 0 87 110
Total Mobile Sources 129 189 1134 7 15 12 148 190
TOTAL 353 241 1247 17 64 72 372 239
1 Values are rounded to nearest integer and may not sum due to rounding 2 Includes entrained road dust 3 Includes 2015 RECLAIM NOx shaves
3-25
741 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-4E
Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2031 Baseline (2008 8-hr ozone attainment year) Average Annual Day and Summer Planning (tpd1)

SOURCE CATEGORY
Annual Average Summer
Planning
VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5 NH3 VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES
Fuel Combustion 11 22 51 2 6 9 11 22
Waste Disposal 16 2 1 1 0 6 19 3
Cleaning and Surface Coatings 50 0 0 0 2 1 52 0
Petroleum Production and Marketing 18 0 5 0 2 0 18 0
Industrial Processes 13 0 1 0 8 9 14 0
Solvent Evaporation:

Consumer Products 94 0 0 0 0 0 94 0
Architectural Coatings 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0
Others 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
Misc. Processes2 13 11 56 1 33 36 7 9
RECLAIM Sources3 0 15 0 6 0 0 0 15
Total Stationary Sources 231 51 113 10 50 61 231 50

MOBILE SOURCES
On-Road Vehicles 47 69 309 1 10 12 49 65
Off-Road Vehicles 66 94 766 7 5 0 81 100
Total Mobile Sources 114 163 1074 8 15 12 130 165
TOTAL 345 214 1188 18 65 73 362 214
1 Values may not sum due to rounding 2 Includes entrained road dust 3 Includes 2015 RECLAIM NOx shaves
1-3-26
742 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
Impact of Growth
The 2016 AQMP forecasts the 2031 emissions inventories ‘‘with growth’’ through a detailed consultation process with SCAG. The region is projected to see a 12 percent growth in population, 16 percent growth in housing units, 23 percent growth in employment, and 8 percent growth in vehicle miles traveled between 2012 and 2031. To illustrate the impact of demographic growth on emissions, year 2031 nogrowth emissions were estimated by removing the growth factors from the 2031 baseline emissions.

Table 3-5 presents the comparison of the projected 2031 emissions with and without growth. In this analysis, the benefit of potential applications of BACT under District’s Regulation XIII – New Source Review (NSR) is not included. The growth impacts to year 2031 for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx and PM2.5 are 48, 35, 251, 2, and 8 tons per day, respectively.

While economic growth for the region is desirable, it presents a challenge to our air quality improvement efforts since the projected growth could offset the impressive progress made in reducing VOC, NOx, and PM2.5 emissions through adopted regulations. Meeting the U.S. EPA’s current and more-stringent future air quality standards will require the continuation of emission reduction efforts from all levels of government.
3-27
743 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 3-5
Growth Impact to 2031 Emissions1 in Tons per Day
WITH GROWTH VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5
Point 30 21 34 9 9
Area 201 29 80 1 32
Road Dust 0 0 0 0 9
On-Road 47 69 309 1 10
Off-Road 66 94 766 7 5
Total 345 214 1188 18 65
NO GROWTH VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5
Point 24 20 31 8 8
Area 178 32 78 1 28
Road Dust 0 0 0 0 8
On-Road 46 51 299 1 9
Off-Road 49 76 519 5 4
Total 297 179 927 16 57
IMPACT OF GROWTH VOC NOx CO SOx PM2.5
Point 6 1 3 0 1
Area 23 -3 2 0 4
Road Dust 0 0 0 0 1
On-Road 1 18 10 0 1
Off-Road 18 19 237 2 1
Total 48 35 251 2 8
1 Annual Average Inventory
1-3-28
744 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
Top Ten Source Categories (2012, 2019, 2022, 2023,
2025, and 2031)
The rankings of the top ten source contributors to the emissions inventories for specific years for VOC, NOx, SOx and PM2.5 are listed and briefly discussed in this section. The summer planning inventories for VOC and NOx, along with the annual average inventories for SOx and PM2.5 for 2012, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031 are shown in Figures 3-7 to 3-30.

Figures 3-7 to 3-12 provide the top ten categories for each of the six inventory years for VOCs. Two of top four categories are on-road mobile sources in the 2012 inventory, but none of the on-road categories are found in the top four categories for 2023, 2025 or 2031. This demonstrates the effect of morestringent on-road standards in the future. Consumer products, and off-road equipment remain as highemitting categories over time. The coatings and related processes category becomes much more significant in future years. The top 10 categories account for 78 percent of the total VOC inventory in 2012 and continue to account for over 72 percent through 2031.

NOTE: Figures 3-7, and 3-14 through 3-30 have been updated from the Draft Plan to reflect the latest emission inventory values (e.g., aircraft NOx and SOx, paved road dust PM2.5).

FIGURE 3-7
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR VOC IN 2012 (SUMMER PLANNING) 87 68
60 44 43
22 22
19 13 11
0 30
60 90
120
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
3-29
745 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-8
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR VOC IN 2019 (SUMMER PLANNING) FIGURE 3-9
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR VOC IN 2022 (SUMMER PLANNING) 88 48
30 30
23 22
15 14 13 12
0 30
60 90
120
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
90 46
25 25 24
18 14 13 12 12
0 30
60 90
120
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-30
746 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-10
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR VOC IN 2023 (SUMMER PLANNING) FIGURE 3-11
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR VOC IN 2025 (SUMMER PLANNING) 90 46
25 24 23 17 15 13 12 11
0 30
60 90
120
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
91 46
25 21 20 16 15 12 12 10
0 30
60 90
120
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
3-31
747 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-12
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR VOC IN 2031 (SUMMER PLANNING) Figures 3-13 to 3-18 show the top ten categories for NOx emissions for specific years. Mobile source categories remain the predominant contributor to NOx emissions. Heavy-duty diesel trucks, offroad equipment, and ships and commercial boats are the top three emitters on the list for all six years.

NOx RECLAIM and residential fuel combustion are the only non-mobile categories which make it to the top ten list in 2012, but as the mobile source categories clean up due to the implementation of regulations, the number of non-mobile sources appearing in the top 10 categories increases with time, with four non-mobile categories in 2025 and 2031. The top ten categories account for 85 percent of the total NOx inventory in 2012, 84 percent in 2019, 83 percent in 2022, 82 percent in 2023, 83 percent in 2025 and 86 percent in 2031.
94 48
27 16 16 16 13 12 11 10
0 30
60 90
120
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-32
748 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-13
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR NOX IN 2012 (SUMMER PLANNING) FIGURE 3-14
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR NOX IN 2019 (SUMMER PLANNING) 147
73 47 42 37
27 20 20 19 14
0 50
100
150
200
NOx Emissions (tons/day)
87 54
38 23 18 17 16 15 13 10
0 50
100
150
200
NOx Emissions (tons/day)
3-33
749 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-15
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR NOX IN 2022 (SUMMER PLANNING) FIGURE 3-16
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR NOX IN 2023 (SUMMER PLANNING) 67 45
35 17 16 15 13 10 10 10
0 50
100
150
200
NOx Emissions (tons/day)
43 43
34 17 15 15 12 10 9 9
0 50
100
150
200
NOx Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-34
750 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-17
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR NOX IN 2025 (SUMMER PLANNING) FIGURE 3-18
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR NOX IN 2031 (SUMMER PLANNING) 42 39 32
18 15 14 10 10 9 9
0 50
100
150
200
NOx Emissions (tons/day)
41 33 29 20 15 11 10 9 9 7
0 50
100
150
200
NOx Emissions (tons/day)
3-35
751 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Figures 3-19 to 3-23 show the top source categories for SOx emissions in the years 2012, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025 and 2031. The emission levels of SOx are relatively low. Therefore, only the categories that emit more than 0.5 tons per day of SOx are ranked and listed. The top five high emitting source categories remain the same in all years. SOx RECLAIM and Ships & Commercial Boats are the most significant contributors. The top categories represent 81 percent, 79 percent, 79 percent, 79 percent, 80 percent and 81 percent of the total SOx inventory in 2012, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2025, and 2031, respectively.

FIGURE 3-19
TOP EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR SOX 0.5 TPD AND OVER IN 2012 (ANNUAL AVERAGE)

6.9 4.6

1.5 1.2 0.8
0 2
4 6
8 10
SOx Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-36
752 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-20
TOP EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR SOX 0.5 TPD AND OVER IN 2019 (ANNUAL AVERAGE) FIGURE 3-21
TOP EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR SOX 0.5 TPD AND OVER IN 2022 (ANNUAL AVERAGE)

6.1 3.1

1.8 1.3

0.7 0
2 4
6 8
10 SOx Emissions (tons/day)

6.1 3.4

2.0 1.4

0.7 0
2 4
6 8
10 SOx Emissions (tons/day)
3-37
753 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-22
TOP EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR SOX 0.5 TPD AND OVER IN 2023 (ANNUAL AVERAGE) FIGURE 3-23
TOP EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR SOX 0.5 TPD AND OVER IN 2025 (ANNUAL AVERAGE)

6.1 3.5

2.0 1.4

0.6 0
2 4
6 8
10 SOx Emissions (tons/day)

6.1 3.6

2.2 1.4

0.6 0
2 4
6 8
10 SOx Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-38
754 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-24
TOP EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR SOX 0.5 TPD AND OVER IN 2031 (ANNUAL AVERAGE) Figures 3-25 to 3-30 show the top ten source categories in specific years for directly emitted PM2.5.

Commercial cooking, paved road dust, and residential fuel combustion are the top three highest emitting categories for all six years. The top ten categories represent 72 percent of the total directly emitted PM2.5 inventory in 2012 and 2019, and 73 percent in 2023 through 2031.

6.1 4.2

2.4 1.5

0.5 0
2 4
6 8
10 SOx Emissions (tons/day)
3-39
755 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-25
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 IN 2012 (ANNUAL AVERAGE) FIGURE 3-26
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 IN 2019 (ANNUAL AVERAGE)

10.4 7.7 7.2

5.0 4.7

3.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 1.7

0.0 3.0

6.0 9.0

12.0 15.0
PM2.5 Emissions (tons/day)

11.6 8.2

6.6 4.9

2.9 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 1.8

0.0 3.0

6.0 9.0

12.0 15.0
PM2.5 Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-40
756 of 2287
Chapter 3: Base Year and Future Emissions
FIGURE 3-27
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 IN 2022 (ANNUAL AVERAGE) FIGURE 3-28
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 IN 2023 (ANNUAL AVERAGE)

12.0 8.4

6.5 4.9

3.1 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.7

0.0 3.0

6.0 9.0

12.0 15.0
PM2.5 Emissions (tons/day)

12.1 8.5

6.5 4.9

3.1 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.7

0.0 3.0

6.0 9.0

12.0 15.0
PM2.5 Emissions (tons/day)
3-41
757 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 3-29
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 IN 2025 (ANNUAL AVERAGE) FIGURE 3-30
TOP TEN EMITTER CATEGORIES FOR DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 IN 2031 (ANNUAL AVERAGE)

12.3 8.6

6.5 4.9

3.2 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.7

0.0 3.0

6.0 9.0

12.0 15.0
PM2.5 Emissions (tons/day)

12.8 8.8

6.5 4.8

3.3 2.9 2.8 2.2 2.0 1.8

0.0 3.0

6.0 9.0

12.0 15.0
PM2.5 Emissions (tons/day)
1-3-42
758 of 2287
hapter 1
ntroduction Control Strategy and
Chapter 4
Implementation
Substantial emission reductions from mobile and stationary sources are needed to meet the federal health standards. Traditional regulatory opportunities are proposed along with innovative, non-traditional control approaches including recognizing co-benefits from other programs and incentives for advanced cleaner technology deployment. 759 of 2287 In This Chapter
 Introduction 4-1
Overview of proposed control strategy and implementation  Overall Strategy 4-2
Developing a comprehensive emission control strategy
 SCAQMD Proposed 8-Hour Ozone
Strategy 4-6
Stationary and mobile source NOx reduction strategies and strategic VOC emission reductions
 State and Federal Control Measures 4-34
On-road, off-road, and other State and federal sources
760 of 2287
v
 SCAG’s RTP/SCS and Transportation
Control Measures 4-41
Regional transportation strategy and control measures
 SCAQMD Proposed PM2.5 Strategy 4-44
Control measures to meet the federal annual PM2.5 standard  SCAQMD Proposed Contingency
Measures 4-51
Satisfying contingency measure requirements
 SIP Emission Reduction
Commitment 4-52
PM2.5 and ozone SIPs emission reduction commitment
 Overall Emission Reductions 4-60
Summary of annual average and summer planning emission
inventory and reductions
 Implementation 4-63
Implementation of the 2016 AQMP and incentive funding at local/regional, state, and national levels
761 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
Introduction
The overall control strategy in the Draft 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan) provides a path to achieving emission reductions to meet air quality goals. Implementation of the 2016 AQMP will be based on a series of control measures and strategies that vary by source type (i.e., mobile or stationary) as well as by the pollutant that is being addressed. Although great strides have been made in air pollution control programs, health-based air quality standards cannot be achieved without significant further emission reductions. An integrated control strategy addressing multiple objectives provides for a more efficient path in meeting all clean air standards, including the federal PM2.5 and ozone standards.

For example, the NOx emission reductions that are needed for ozone attainment also reduce PM2.5 to attainment levels. Therefore, allocating resources towards NOx reductions is a more cost-effective strategy than separately implementing controls that only benefit PM2.5. Furthermore, in designing an integrated control strategy to achieve the ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards, consideration must be given to the health of the public, the economic well-being of the region, and challenges for local business.

History has shown that air quality levels can be greatly improved while maintaining a growing and vibrant economy.

The 2016 AQMP is designed to achieve the federal 2008 8-hour ozone standard (75 ppb) by 2031 and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard (12 µg/m3
) by 2025 as a “serious” nonattainment area. The Plan also addresses attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard (35 µg/m3 ) by 2019, which was recently
reclassified as “serious” nonattainment for this standard. It also updates previous plans for the revoked 1-hour (120 ppb) and 1997 8-hour (80 ppb) ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that have not yet been met. The California state ambient air quality standard is identical to the federal standard for annual PM2.5 and there is no state 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The State has very stringent PM10 standards (annual PM10: 20 µg/m3 and 24-hour PM10: 50 µg/m3 ). While there is no effective
attainment date for the state PM standards, the state standards must be achieved as soon as practicable to protect the public health and welfare of Southern Californians. Progress towards achieving the federal PM2.5 standards is most expeditious approach for attaining both the federal and state PM standards, even though state PM10 standards are more stringent than the federal standard.

The magnitude of the NOx emission reductions needed for attainment of the ozone NAAQS poses the most significant challenge. This challenge requires an aggressive mobile source control strategy supplemented with focused and strategic stationary source control measures, and close collaboration with federal, state, and regional governments, businesses, and the public. The 2016 AQMP uses a variety of implementation approaches such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission technologies, when cost effective and feasible, and near-zero emission technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate, energy efficiency), and incentives. Additional demonstration and commercialization projects will be crucial to help deploy and reduce costs for zero and near-zero emission technologies. A key element of Plan implementation will be private and public funding to help further the development and deployment of these advanced technologies. Many of the same technologies will address both air quality and climate goals, such as increased energy efficiency and reduced fuel usage. The total required emission reductions, technology readiness, cost-effectiveness, economic impacts, and interaction with 4-1
762 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
other attainment deadlines for all pollutants are critical considerations in developing an integrated multipollutant control strategy. This chapter outlines the proposed control strategy and the adoption and implementation schedule for the 2016 AQMP to achieve the federal health-based air quality standards in the Basin.

Overall Strategy
Need for Emission Reductions
As a consequence of the region’s air quality control programs at local, State, and federal levels, the concentrations of ambient PM2.5 and ozone in the Basin have improved dramatically over the previous decades. For example, by 2013 and again in 2014, no stations measuring PM2.5 in the Basin violated the former (1997) annual PM2.5 NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3
). Yet, the Basin still exceeds federal health-based
standards for both ozone and PM2.5, and experiences some of the worst air pollution in the nation. The three-year (2012–2014) design values for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone are exceeding the 2012 annual (12 µg/m3
) and 2006 24-hour (35 µg/m3) PM2.5 standards and the 1997 (80 ppb) and 2008 (75 ppb) 8-hour ozone standards, respectively. Details on the Basin’s current air quality, historical trends, and comparisons to the NAAQS are provided in Chapter 2.

Challenges
The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin, and the primary driver for the control strategy, is the need to reduce NOx emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines (1-hour ozone: 120 ppb by 20231 and 8-hour ozone: 80 ppb by 2024 and 75 ppb by 2032). For all ozone NAAQS standards, emission reductions must be in place the previous year (2022, 2023, and 2031). The approximately 522 tons per day of total Basin NOx emissions in 2012 are projected to decrease to approximately 255 tons per day and 214 tons per day in the attainment years of 2023 and 2031, respectively, due to continued implementation of already adopted control measures. Chapter 3 describes the 2012 and future year baseline (no additional actions beyond already adopted regulations) inventories in detail. However, in the absence of additional actions, these emission reductions are not sufficient to meet the ozone standards. An additional 45 percent NOx emission reductions are needed in 2023, and an additional 55 percent NOx reductions are needed in 2031 to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These percentages are based on meeting the “carrying capacity” (the maximum amount of emissions allowable in the region that would still meet the standards) of 141 tons per day in 2023 and 96 tons per day in 2031.

Strategy
To meet the targeted carrying capacity, a comprehensive emission control strategy has been developed.

The 2016 AQMP integrates a variety of control measures and implementation approaches in a cost1 The standard was revoked, but the Basin has not yet met the standard. Ten years from the designation date of February 6, 2013 is the latest statutory deadline (February 6, 2023). 1-4-2

763 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
effective, feasible, and targeted fashion considering the co-benefits from climate change and air toxics control programs that may also produce concurrent benefits for ozone and PM2.5. Regional air quality modeling indicates that significant NOx reductions with additional strategic, limited VOC reductions will lead to attainment of the ozone standards. Maximizing emission reductions utilizing zero-emission technologies, when cost effective and feasible, and near-zero emission technologies in other applications can promote significant NOx reductions with additional VOC and PM2.5 co-benefits.

The 2016 AQMP relies strongly upon partnerships at federal, state, and local levels, seeking to expand existing collaborations and establish new coalitions. These strategies include aggressive new regulations and development of incentive funding and supporting infrastructure for early deployment of advanced control technologies. Incentive funding for stationary sources can be pursued and best applied where controls are cost-effective, but not necessarily affordable, especially when controls are considered for smaller businesses or residences. Incentive funds can be used to subsidize low-emitting equipment purchases or encourage the use of alternative approaches. Additional funding for replacement of older, high-emitting vehicles with the cleanest vehicles available is the most significant need. Expansion of supporting infrastructure for implementation of cleaner fuels also helps to accelerate the use of ultra-low emitting vehicles. The SCAQMD will continue to support technology demonstration projects for both mobile and stationary sources and will work to create new or expanded funding opportunities for earlier deployment of cleaner technologies, thus contributing to a smooth transition to zero and near-zero emission technologies in the mobile and stationary source sectors. The SCAQMD will prioritize distribution of incentive funding in environmental justice (EJ) areas and seek opportunities to expand funding to benefit the most disadvantaged communities.

Control measure ideas were developed from a number of sources, including the AQMP Advisory Group, AQMP Control Strategy Symposium, development of the AQMP White Papers, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Reasonable Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis, Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Best Available Control Measures (BACM) analysis (see Appendix VI), SCAQMD staff and public input, and previous Plan proposals. As part of the 2016 AQMP control measure development, SCAQMD staff conducted an AQMP Control Strategy Symposium in June 2015 to solicit new control concepts and innovative ideas from industry experts, professional consultants, government specialists, environmental and community representatives, and other stakeholders. Suggestions from staff and stakeholder recommendations assisted in identifying additional potential control measures and assessing control measure feasibility. For each control measure, the amount of emission reductions and the cost-effectiveness is considered in the selection of the measures.

The control measures were developed based on technical and economic feasibility, as well as other factors such as promoting fair share responsibility for sources under different regulatory authorities and maximizing private/public partnerships. Table 4-1 provides an overview of the criteria used in evaluating and selecting feasible control measures. The criteria are presented in alphabetical order. 4-3
764 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
TABLE 4-1
Criteria for Evaluating 2016 AQMP Control Measures (not ranked by priority) Criteria Description
Cost-Effectiveness The cost of a control measure per reduction of emissions of a particular pollutant (cost includes purchasing, installing, operating, and maintaining the control technology).

Emission Reduction
Potential
The total amount of pollution that a control measure can reduce.

Enforceability The ability to ensure compliance with a control measure.

Legal Authority Ability of the SCAQMD or other adopting agency to legally implement the measure.

Public Acceptability The likelihood that the public will approve or cooperate in the implementation of a control measure.

Rate of Emission
Reduction
The time it will take for a control measure to reduce a certain amount of air pollution.

Technological Feasibility The likelihood that the technology for a control measure is or will be available.

Solar Energy Technology
In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 40404.5, the SCAQMD continues to fulfill its directive to require the use of BACT for new sources. In consideration of the State policy (Health and Safety Code Section 40404.5) to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems, staff has made a reasonable effort to incorporate solar energy technology into the 2016 AQMP in applications where it can be shown to be cost-effective. The generation of energy through solar collectors reduces dependence on existing fossil-fuel power plants and substantial renewable energy generating capacity from solar, wind and geothermal may reduce the need to build new power plants in the future. Even as transportation is increasingly electrified, this would have a direct criteria pollutant emission reduction impact over time and would assist in meeting the federal ozone standards. It should be noted that California Health and Safety Code Section 40414 restricts the SCAQMD from infringing on existing authority of counties and cities to plan or control land use. However, the SCAQMD is tasked to reduce criteria pollutants to meet the federal and state pollutant standards and has developed innovative approaches to achieve the standards in the 2016 AQMP. These approaches have been incorporated in a few of the control measures described below and provide an opportunity to incorporate solar energy 1-4-4
765 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
technology. Great progress has already been achieved in California, which is leading the nation with over half a million solar projects.
2 Control measure ECC-01 seeks to recognize criteria pollutant co-benefits from federal, state (e.g., AB 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act) and local mandates and programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through several mechanisms such as market programs, renewable energy targets, incentive and rebate programs, and promoting implementation and development of new technologies.

Solar programs are widely incentivized across the state and under these mandates and programs, will continue to be installed at industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential sites. As such, the criteria pollutant benefits from actions to meet climate and energy goals will be recognized under this control measure.

Similarly, control measure ECC-02 will seek criteria pollutant co-benefits from the implementation of required energy efficiency mandates such as California’s Title 24 program and Senate Bill (SB) 350 (Clean Energy Pollution Reduction Act). The 2020 target for Title 24 will be to achieve Zero Net Energy consumption from new residential buildings utilizing new building materials, more efficient appliances, and renewable energy resources. SB 350 doubles the targeted energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas uses of retail customers and increases renewable energy sources to 50 percent by 2030.

Solar is one form of renewable energy being implemented to assist buildings in reducing energy usage and this control measure will recognize the co-benefits from such actions. Further, control measure ECC-03 seeks to provide financial incentives to go beyond the goals achieved under ECC-02. Thus, existing residential and commercial buildings can apply for incentive monies to improve weatherization and to reduce energy use for heating, cooling, lighting, cooking, and other needs. This measure would incentivize energy efficient means such as a solar thermal pool heating system or pool covers. The most cost-effective means to achieve those reductions will vary depending on the facility, the amount of energy to be replaced, the cost of such equipment, and the life of the project. However, it is expected that applicants for the incentive money will seek the most cost-efficient options.

Modernizing industrial facilities constitutes approximately 30 percent of the total NOx emission control strategy from stationary sources in the 2016 AQMP. Control measure CMB-01 anticipates future rulemaking in combination with financial incentives for the replacement of older equipment with zero and near-zero emission technologies. Equipment electrification, use of fuel cells, battery storage, and/or combined heating and power are possible alternatives in achieving this effort. An increased need for electricity may result in increased power demand and potential emissions. Incorporating newer technologies such as solar collectors, smart grid, and energy storage with better power system management at the transmission, distribution, and behind the meter applications can reduce the need for redundant infrastructure and emissions from fossil-based generation. 2 http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/.
4-5

766 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
Chapter Overview
The following sections discuss the control measures, SIP commitments, overall emission reductions, and implementation as outlined below:
• SCAQMD Proposed 8-hour Ozone Strategy (see Appendix IV-A for detailed descriptions of the SCAQMD stationary source and mobile source control measures) • State and Federal Control Measures (see Appendix IV-B for detailed descriptions of the CARB Strategy)
• SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control Measures (see Appendix IV-C for detailed descriptions of the regional transportation strategy and control measures)
• SCAQMD Proposed PM2.5 Strategy (see Appendix IV-A for detailed descriptions of the SCAQMD stationary source control measures)
• SCAQMD Proposed Contingency Measures (see Chapter 6 for a detailed discussion of the contingency requirements)
• SIP Emission Reduction Commitment
• Overall Emission Reductions
• Implementation
SCAQMD Proposed 8-Hour Ozone Strategy
Ozone reduction strategies must be continued and accelerated to ensure that the Basin will meet the federal 8-hour ozone standards by the latest statutory deadlines in 2024 and 2032. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include stationary and mobile source NOx reduction strategies, supplemented by limited, strategic VOC emission reductions.

To ultimately achieve the ozone ambient air quality standards, significant additional emission reductions will be necessary from a variety of sources, including those primarily under the jurisdiction of CARB (e.g., on-road motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and consumer products) and U.S. EPA (e.g., aircraft, ships, trains, and pre-empted off-road equipment). Without an adequate and fair-share level of reductions from all sources, the emission reduction burden would unfairly be shifted to stationary sources, most of which are already subject to the most stringent controls in the nation. The SCAQMD will continue to use its available regulatory authority to further control mobile source emissions where federal or state actions do not meet regional needs and to ensure the effectiveness of state and federal measures. SCAQMD’s proposed 8-hour ozone control measures are comprised of stationary source measures and mobile source measures. The previous 2007 SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS contained commitments for emission reductions that relied on advancement or improvement of technologies, as authorized under Section 182(e)(5) of the federal CAA. These measures, which are sometimes known as the “black box”, accounted for a substantial portion of the NOx emission reductions needed to attain the federal ozone standards—approximately 200 tons per day. Given that CAA deadlines are fast approaching and the 1-4-6
767 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
technologies needed for attainment are identifiable, reliance on 182(e)(5) measures should be minimized to the extent feasible.

Mobile sources currently emit over 80 percent of regional NOx emissions, and therefore mobile source controls must be a significant part of the control strategy. As provided in Figure 4-1, the on-road heavyduty truck category is projected to comprise the single largest contributor to regional NOx in 2023.

Other equipment involved in goods movement, such as marine vessels, locomotives and aircraft, are also substantial NOx sources.

*Ocean going vessels = 23 tons/day
**RECLAIM: 275 largest stationary sources, including refineries and power plants FIGURE 4-1
TOP NOX EMISSIONS CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDING NOX EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) IN 2023 IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SOURCE: 2016 AQMP SUMMER PLANNING EMISSIONS INVENTORY – DECEMBER 2016) Figure 4-2 shows projections indicating that the region must reduce regional NOx emissions by an additional 45 percent in 2023, and an additional 55 percent in 2031 (beyond projected 2023 and 2031 baseline emissions, respectively) to attain the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 4-7
768 of 2287
Final 2016 AQMP
FIGURE 4-2

NEEDED NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO ACHIEVE
FEDERAL 8-HOUR OZONE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Since the most significant emission sources are already subject to stringent emissions controls, attainment of the ozone standards will require broad deployment of zero and near-zero NOx emission technologies in the 2023 to 2031 timeframe. Traditional stationary combustion sources can be replaced with new lower or zero-emitting technologies, including low-NOx or more efficient equipment, electrification, or fuel cells for combined heat and power (CHP). Such replacement can apply to a single source or an entire facility. Electrification of equipment is one way to shift away from combustion sources generating NOx emissions, especially when combined with renewable, non-combustion power generation. Such combustion equipment includes engines, turbines, boilers, microturbines, etc. located at industrial and commercial facilities. The modification of residential and commercial water and space heating equipment is addressed in control measure CMB-02. Mobile sources such as trucks, locomotives, and cargo handling equipment have technological potential to achieve zero- and near-zero emission levels.

Current and potential technologies include ultra-low NOx engines, hybrid-electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell on-road vehicle technologies. New types of hybrids could also serve long-term needs while providing additional fuel diversity. These could include, for example, natural gas-electric hybrid technologies for on-road and other applications, particularly if coupled with improved after-treatment technologies. Alternative fuels such as natural gas have historically helped the region make progress toward attaining air quality standards and are generally cleaner than conventional fuels. Given the 1-4-8
769 of 2287
Chapter 4: Control Strategy and Implementation
region’s need to attain air quality standards, alternative fueled engines will continue to play a major role in emission reductions. In addition, lower on-road heavy-duty engine exhaust emission standards for NOx will play an essential role for the Basin to attain the federal ozone standards since the majority of the NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks in the Basin come from trucks that are registered out-of-state and are under federal authority. The SCAQMD Governing Board recently authorized staff to petition U.S.