Montebello City Council
April 13, 2022

ORDER NO. : 2676021408

EXHIBIT A
The land referred to is situated in the County of Los Angeles, City of Montebello, State of California, and is described as follows:

THAT PORTION OF LOT "B" OF MONTEBELLO, IN THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 78 PAGE 19 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 102 OF SAID MONTEBELLO, THENCE SOUTH 75° 53' 40" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 102, 300 00 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 277 94 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO W. W. BLACK, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 6621 PAGE 288 OF

DEEDS, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF, AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHITTIER AVENUE 102.68 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B" BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF POPLAR AVENUE, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 169 70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING:

DESCRIBED LINE BEGINNING AT SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAID W. W. BLACK, THENCE NORTH 50° 22" 02" EAST 1 87 FEET, THENCE NORTH 56° 48' 03" EAST 45.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH 50° 37' 43" EAST 19710 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 102 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 75° 53' 40" EAST 148.96 FEET FROM THE

INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF A STRIP OF LAND OF UNIFORM DEPTH OF 100 00 FEET, EXTENDING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF POPLAR

AVENUE FROM THE NORTH LINE OF WHITTIER AVENUE (NOW WHITTIER BOULEVARD) TO SAID LOT 102. AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2720 PAGE 129 OF DEEDS.

EXCEPT ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET OR MORE FROM THE SURFACE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND,

BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO ENTER AND USE THE SURFACE OR THE SUBSURFACE LYING ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE THEREOF. AS GRANTED TO FAR WEST OIL CO, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1971 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3238.

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
For Exceptions Shown or Referred to, See Attached

ORT 3158-A (Rev. 08/07/08)
101 North Brand Blvd., 14th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
(818) 247-2917

PRELIMINARY REPORT
Logix Federal Credit Union
PO Box 4070
CASTAIC, CA 91310
Phone: (818) 565-2242
Fax: (818) 565-2490
Attention: KUMIKO YAMADA-YUGE
Property Address:

Our Order Number 2676021408-52
Customer Reference Magna & Magna, Inc
When Replying Please Contact:

Rolly Cruz
[email protected]
Ph: (818) 247-2917
Efax: (818) 484-2602
116 North Poplar Avenue, Montebello, CA 90640
In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY, as issuing Agent of Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy forms.

The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit I attached. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the Homeowner’s Policy of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit I. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit I of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.

It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.

This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.

Dated as of September 24, 2021, at 7:30 AM

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 2676021408-52

ORT 3158-B
The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is:

ALTA Loan Policy - 2006. A specific request should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired.

The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred or covered by this Report is:

Fee
Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:

Magna & Magna, Inc., a California corporation
The land referred to in this Report is situated in the County of Los Angeles, City of Montebello, State of California, and is described as follows:

THAT PORTION OF LOT "B" OF MONTEBELLO, IN THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 78 PAGE 19 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 102 OF SAID MONTEBELLO, THENCE SOUTH 75° 53' 40" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 102, 300 00 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 277 94 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO W. W. BLACK, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 6621 PAGE 288 OF DEEDS, THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF, AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHITTIER AVENUE 102.68 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "B" BEING ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF POPLAR AVENUE, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 169 70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING:

DESCRIBED LINE BEGINNING AT SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAID W. W.

BLACK, THENCE NORTH 50° 22" 02" EAST 1 87 FEET, THENCE NORTH 56° 48' 03" EAST 45.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH 50° 37' 43" EAST 19710 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 102 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 75° 53' 40" EAST 148.96 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF A STRIP OF LAND OF UNIFORM DEPTH OF 100 00 FEET, EXTENDING ALONG THE EAST

LINE OF POPLAR AVENUE FROM THE NORTH LINE OF WHITTIER AVENUE (NOW WHITTIER BOULEVARD) TO SAID LOT 102. AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2720 PAGE 129 OF DEEDS.

EXCEPT ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET OR MORE FROM THE SURFACE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO ENTER AND USE THE SURFACE OR THE SUBSURFACE LYING ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE THEREOF. AS GRANTED TO FAR WEST OIL CO, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1971 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3238.

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 2676021408-52

ORT 3158-B
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows:

1. Taxes and assessments, general and special, for the fiscal year 2021 - 2022, as follows:

Assessor's Parcel No : 6347-012-008
Code No. : 06330
1st Installment : $8,210.80 NOT Marked Paid
2nd Installment : $8,210.79 NOT Marked Paid
Land Value : $97,364.00
Imp. Value : $717,353.00

2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Section 75, et seq., of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

3. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not shown by the public records.

4. An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and incidental purposes as provided in the following
Granted To : Francis M. Dyke and wife
For : pipes for conducting water for irrigation
Recorded : in Book 2720 of Deeds, Page 129
Affects : As described therein

5. The right to conduct water in pipes or ditches from the place of development to any reservoir or other lands owned by Kaspare Cohn, his heirs or assigns, as contained in the deed from Kaspare Cohn and wife, recorded in Book 2507, Page 98 of Deeds.

6. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, but omitting any covenants or restrictions if any, based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin unless and only to the extent that said covenant (A) is exempt under Chapter 42, Section 3607 of the United States code or (B) relates to handicap but does not discriminate against handicapped persons, in the instrument above mentioned.

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 2676021408-52

ORT 3158-B
NOTE: “If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.”

7. An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and incidental purposes as provided in the following
Granted To : The Standard Oil Company
For : transportation of all oil, petroleum, gas or water for the erection maintenance and operation of telegraph or telephone pole lines Recorded : in Book 6568 of Deeds, Page 107
Affects : As described therein
And recorded in Book 6557 of Deeds, Page 340 .

8. An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and incidental purposes as provided in the following
For : waterline
Recorded : April 1, 1974 in Official Records As Instrument No. 4296 Affects : As described therein

9. An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and incidental purposes as provided in the following
Granted To : Standard Oil Company of California, a Corporation and Standard Gasoline Company, a Corporation
For : pipe lines
Recorded : May 23, 1962 in Book D-1624 of Official Records, Page 757 As Instrument No. 4832
Affects : As described therein

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 2676021408-52

ORT 3158-B

10. An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and incidental purposes as provided in the following
Granted To : Joseph A. Magna and Hedy A. Magna
For : waterline
Recorded : December 29, 1987 in Official Records As Instrument No. 87- 2043659
Affects : As described therein

11. An unrecorded lease upon the terms, covenants, and conditions contained or referred to therein,
Lessor : Magna & Magna Incorporated
Lessee : Web Service Company, Inc.

Disclosed by : Memorandum of Lease
Recorded : February 28, 2000 in Official Records As Instrument No. 00-0292848 NOTE: The present ownership of said leasehold or leaseholds and other matters affecting the interest of the lessee or lessees are not shown herein.

12. Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness of the amount stated below and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof,
Amount : $2,000,000.00
Trustor/Borrower : Magna & Magna, Inc., a California corporation Trustee : First Mortgage Solutions
Beneficiary/Lender : KeyPoint Credit Union
Dated : June 5, 2020
Recorded : June 12, 2020 in Official Records As Instrument No. 20200644152
Loan No. : 528207380
In Connection therewith, said trustors executed an Assignment of Rents, Dated : June 5, 2020
Recorded : June 12, 2020 in Official Records As Instrument No. 20200644153

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 2676021408-52

ORT 3158-B
Covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in an instrument, which instrument is additional security for said deed of trust.

Entitled : Hazardous Substances Certificate and Indemnity Agreement Executed By : Magna & Magna, Inc., a California corporation, Joseph A.

MAGNA Living trust, DTD 01-13-15 and KeyPoint Credit Union Recorded : June 12, 2020 in Official Records As Instrument No. 20200644154
Upon the recordation of a full reconveyance of said deed of trust, the covenants, conditions and restrictions will have no further force or effect.

13. Any unrecorded and subsisting leases.

Satisfactory evidence furnished to this Company:
(a) as to the due formation and continued existence of Magna & Magna, Inc., a California corporation as a legal entity under the laws of California; and

14. (b) documents from its board of directors authorizing this transaction and specifying the officers to execute on behalf of the corporation.

15. The requirement that this Company be provided with an opportunity to inspect the land (the Company reserves the right to make additional exceptions and/or requirements upon completion of its inspection).

16. Underwriting approval is required prior to our acceptance of instructions, recording of instruments and issuance of a title insurance policy or other product. If the application is approved, this report may be amended; additional exceptions from coverage may be shown, and additional conditions or requirements may be made.
-------------------- Informational Notes ------------------- A. The applicable rate(s) for the policy(s) being offered by this report or commitment appears to be section(s) 4.2.

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 2676021408-52

ORT 3158-B
The above numbered report (including any supplements or amendments thereto) is hereby modified and/or supplemented to reflect the following additional items relating to the issuance of an American Land Title Association loan form policy:

NONE
NOTE: Our investigation has been completed and there is located on said land a multi-family residence known as 116 North Poplar Avenue, City of Montebello, California.

The ALTA loan policy, when issued, will contain the CLTA 100 Endorsement and 116 series Endorsement.

Unless shown elsewhere in the body of this report, there appear of record no transfers or agreements to transfer the land described herein within the last three years prior to the date hereof, except as follows:

B.

NONE

Exhibit I
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (06/17/06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE

SCHEDULE B - PART I
Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II, this policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material unless such lien is shown by the Public Records at Date of Policy.

FACTS WHAT DOES OLD REPUBLIC TITLE
DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?
Why?
Financial companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand what we do.

What?
The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you have with us. This information can include:
• Social Security number and employment information
• Mortgage rates and payments and account balances
• Checking account information and wire transfer instructions When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice.

How?
All financial companies need to share customers’ personal information to run their everyday business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their customers’ personal information; the reasons Old Republic Title chooses to share; and whether you can limit this sharing.

Reasons we can share your personal information
Does Old
Republic Title
share?
Can you limit this
sharing?
For our everyday business purposes — such as to process your transactions, maintain your account(s), or respond to court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus
Yes No
For our marketing purposes —
to offer our products and services to you No We don’t share For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don’t share For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes —
information about your transactions and experiences Yes No For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes —
information about your creditworthiness
No We don’t share
For our affiliates to market to you No We don’t share
For non-affiliates to market to you No We don’t share
Go to www.oldrepublictitle.com (Contact Us)

Who we are
Who is providing this notice? Companies with an Old Republic Title name and other affiliates. Please see below for a list of affiliates.

What we do
How does Old Republic Title
protect my personal
information?
To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer safeguards and secured files and buildings. For more information, visit https://www.oldrepublictitle.com/privacy-policy
How does Old Republic Title
collect my personal information?
We collect your personal information, for example, when you:
· Give us your contact information or show your driver’s license · Show your government-issued ID or provide your mortgage information · Make a wire transfer
We also collect your personal information from others, such as credit bureaus, affiliates, or other companies.

Why can’t I limit all sharing? Federal law gives you the right to limit only:
· Sharing for affiliates’ everyday business purposes- information about your creditworthiness
· Affiliates from using your information to market toyou · Sharing for non-affiliates to market toyou
State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to limit sharing. See the State Privacy Rights section location at https://www.oldrepublictitle.com/privacypolicy for your rights under state law.

Definitions
Affiliates Companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies.
• Our affiliates include companies with an Old Republic Title name, and financial companies such as Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC, Lex Terrae National Title Services, Inc., Mississippi Valley Title Services Company, and The Title Company of North Carolina.

Non-affiliates Companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. • Old Republic Title does not share with non-affiliates so they can market to you Joint marketing A formal agreement between non-affiliated financial companies that together market financial products or services to you.
• Old Republic Title doesn’t jointly market.

Affiliates Who May be Delivering This Notice
American First Title
& Trust Company
American Guaranty
Title Insurance
Company
Attorneys' Title Fund
Services, LLC
Compass Abstract, Inc. eRecording Partners
Network, LLC
Genesis Abstract, LLC Guardian Consumer
Services, Inc.
iMarc, Inc. Kansas City
Management Group,
LLC
L.T. Service Corp.

Lenders Inspection
Company
Lex Terrae National
Title Services, Inc.

Lex Terrae, Ltd. Mississippi Valley Title
Services Company
National Title Agent's
Services Company
Old Republic Branch
Information Services,
Inc.

Old Republic
Diversified Services,
Inc.

Old Republic Escrow
of Vancouver, Inc.

Old Republic Exchange
Company
Old Republic National
Ancillary Services, Inc.

Old Republic
National Commercial
Title Services, Inc.

Old Republic Title
and Escrow of
Hawaii, Ltd.

Old Republic National
Title Insurance
Company
Old Republic Title
Company
Old Republic Title
Companies, Inc.

Old Republic Title
Company of Conroe
Old Republic Title
Company of Indiana
Old Republic Title
Company of Nevada
Old Republic Title
Company of Oklahoma
Old Republic Title
Company of Oregon
Old Republic Title
Company of St. Louis
Old Republic Title
Company of
Tennessee
Old Republic Title
Information Concepts
Old Republic Title
Insurance Agency, Inc.

Old Republic Title, Ltd.

RamQuest Software,
Inc.

Republic Abstract &
Settlement, LLC
Sentry Abstract
Company
Surety Title Agency,
Inc.

The Title Company of
North Carolina
Trident Land Transfer
Company, LLC
2 Updated: January 1, 2020
Privacy Notice for California Consumers
This Privacy Notice for California Consumers supplements the information contained in the Master Privacy Notice for Old Republic Title and applies to consumers that reside in the State of California.

The terms used in this Privacy Notice have the same meaning as the terms defined in the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).

What Personal Information We Collect
In accordance with the CCPA, personal information is information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information does not include:

Information outside the scope of the CCPA such as:
· Health or medical information covered by the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). · Personal Information covered by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the California Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA), and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994,
· Publicly available information that is available from federal, state, or local government records, and
· De-identified or aggregated consumer information.

Please see the chart below to learn what categories of personal information we may have collected about California consumers within the preceding twelve months, the sources of and business purposes for that collection and the third parties with whom the information is shared, if any.

Category Examples Collected Sources Business Purpose
for Collection
Categories of
Third Parties
with Whom
Information
is Shared
Identifiers Real name, alias,
postal address,
unique personal
identifier, online
identifier, Internet
protocol address,
email address,
account name, social
security number,
driver’s license
number, passport
number or other
similar identifiers
Yes Consumers,
Lenders,
Brokers,
Attorneys,
Real Estate
Agents, and
Title Agents
associated
with the
transaction
Underwriting or
providing other
products or
services,
responding to
policyholder/consu
mer claims,
inquiries or
complaints,
detecting security
incidents,
protecting against
malicious,
Service
providers
associated
with the
transaction for
a business
purpose
2 deceptive,
fraudulent, or
illegal activity.

Other audit or
operational
purposes.

Personal
information
described in
California
Customer
Records
statute (Cal.

Civ. Code §
1798.80(e))
Name, signature,
social security
number, physical
characteristics or
description, address,
telephone number,
passport number,
driver’s license or
state identification
card number,
insurance policy
number, education,
employment,
employment history,
bank account
number, credit card
number, debit card
number, or any other
financial information,
medical information,
or health insurance
information.
“Personal
information” does
not include publicly
available information
that is lawfully made
available to the
general public from
federal, state, or local
government records.

Yes Consumers,
Lenders,
Brokers,
Attorneys,
Real Estate
Agents, and
Title Agents
associated
with the
transaction
Underwriting or
providing other
products or
services,
responding to
policyholder/consu
mer claims,
inquiries or
complaints,
detecting security
incidents,
protecting against
malicious,
deceptive,
fraudulent, or
illegal activity.

Other audit or
operational
purposes.

Service
providers
associated
with the
transaction for
a business
purpose
Characteristics
of protected
classifications
under
California or
federal law
Age (40 years or
older), race, color,
ancestry, national
origin, citizenship,
religions or creed,
marital status,
medical condition,
physical or mental
disability, sex
(including gender,
gender identity,
gender expression,
pregnancy or
childbirth and related
Yes Consumers,
Lenders,
Brokers,
Attorneys,
Real Estate
Agents, and
Title Agents
associated
with the
transaction
Underwriting or
providing other
products or
services,
responding to
policyholder/consu
mer claims,
inquiries or
complaints. Other
audit or
operational
purposes.

Service
providers
associated
with the
transaction for
a business
purpose
2 medical conditions),
sexual orientation,
veteran or military
status, or genetic
information
(including familial
genetic information).

Internet or
other
electronic
network
activity
Browsing history,
search history,
information about a
consumer’s
interaction with a
website, application,
or advertisement.

Yes Consumers,
Lenders,
Brokers,
Attorneys,
Real Estate
Agents, and
Title Agents
associated
with the
transaction
To provide access
to certain online
services. To
understand the
interests of visitors
to our online
services, to
support certain
features of our
site, for navigation
and to display
certain features
more effectively.

Detecting security
incidents,
protecting against
malicious,
deceptive,
fraudulent, or
illegal activity.

Other audit or
operational
purposes.

Not Disclosed
Geolocation
data
Geographic tracking
data, physical
location and
movements
Yes Consumers,
Lenders,
Brokers,
Attorneys,
Real Estate
Agents, and
Title Agents
associated
with the
transaction
To provide access
to certain online
services. To
understand the
interests of visitors
to our online
services, to
support certain
features of our
site, for navigation
and to display
certain features
more effectively.

Other audit or
operational
purposes.

Not Disclosed
2 What Personal Information We Share and Why We Share It The CCPA requires us to tell you what categories of personal information we “sell” or “disclose.” We do not sell and will not sell your personal information as that term is commonly understood. We also do not sell and will not sell your personal information, including the personal information of persons under 16 years of age, as that term is defined by the CCPA. When it is necessary for a business purpose, we share or disclose your personal information with a service provider, and we enter a contract with the service provider that limits how the information may be used and requires the service provider to protect the confidentiality of the information.

In the preceding twelve months, we have disclosed the following categories of personal information for the following business purposes. Where the personal information is shared with third parties, as that term is defined in the CCPA, the category of the third party is indicated.

Category Examples Business Purpose for
Disclosure
Categories of
Third Parties
with Whom
Information is
Shared
Identifiers Real name, alias, postal address,
unique personal identifier, online
identifier, internet protocol address,
email address, account name, social
security number, driver’s license
number, passport number or other
similar identifiers
Underwriting or providing other
products or services, responding
to policyholder/consumer claims,
inquiries or complaints, detecting
security incidents, protecting
against malicious, deceptive,
fraudulent, or illegal activity.

Other audit or operational
purposes.

Service
providers
associated with
the transaction
for a business
purpose
Personal
information
described in
California
Customer
Records
statute (Cal.

Civ. Code §
1798.80(e))
Name, signature, social security
number, physical characteristics or
description, address, telephone
number, passport number, driver’s
license or state identification card
number, insurance policy number,
education, employment, employment
history, bank account number, credit
card number, debit card number, or
any other financial information,
medical information, or health
insurance information. “Personal
information” does not include publicly
available information that is lawfully
made available to the general public
from federal, state, or local
government records.

Underwriting or providing other
products or services, responding
to policyholder/consumer claims,
inquiries or complaints, detecting
security incidents, protecting
against malicious, deceptive,
fraudulent, or illegal activity.

Other audit or operational
purposes.

Service
providers
associated with
the transaction
for a business
purpose
2 Characteristics
of protected
classifications
under
California or
federal law
Age (40 years or older), race, color,
ancestry, national origin, citizenship,
religions or creed, marital status,
medical condition, physical or mental
disability, sex (including gender,
gender identity, gender expression,
pregnancy or childbirth and related
medical conditions), sexual
orientation, veteran or military status,
or genetic information (including
familial genetic information).

Underwriting or providing other
products or services, responding
to policyholder/consumer claims,
inquiries or complaints. Other
audit or operational purposes.

Service
providers
associated with
the transaction
for a business
purpose
Internet or
other
electronic
network
activity
Browsing history, search history,
information about a consumer’s
interaction with a website, application,
or advertisement.

To provide access to certain
online services. To understand
the interests of visitors to our
online services, to support
certain features of our site, for
navigation and to display certain
features more effectively.

Detecting security incidents,
protecting against malicious,
deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal
activity. Other audit or
operational purposes.

Not Disclosed
Geolocation
data
Geographic tracking data, physical
location and movements
To provide access to certain
online services. To understand
the interests of visitors to our
online services, to support
certain features of our site, for
navigation and to display certain
features more effectively. Other
audit or operational purposes.

Not Disclosed
We may also transfer to a third party the personal information of a consumer as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the third party assumes control of all or part of the business.

Your Rights and Choices
The CCPA provides California consumers with certain rights regarding their personal information. This chart describes those rights and certain limitations to those rights.

Right What This Means
Notice At or before the time your personal information is collected, you will be given written notice of the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information will be used.

Access At your verifiable request, but no more than twice in a twelve month period, we shall disclose to you: 1) the categories of personal information we have collected about you, 2) the 2 categories of sources for the personal information we collected about you, 3) our business and commercial purpose for collecting or selling your personal information, 4) the categories of third parties with whom we share your personal information, 5) The specific pieces of information we have collected about you, 6) the categories of personal information disclosed for a business purpose, and
7) If we sold personal information, the categories of personal information sold and the categories of third parties to whom it was sold.

Deletion You have the right to request that we delete any of your personal information that we collected from you, subject to certain exceptions. Once we receive and verify your request, we will delete (and direct our service providers to delete) your personal information from our records unless an exception applies. We may deny your request if retention of the information is necessary for us or our service providers to:
· Complete the transaction for which we collected the personal information, provide a good or service that you requested, take actions reasonably anticipated within the context of our ongoing business relationship with you, or otherwise perform our contract with you.
· Detect security incidents, protect against malicious, deceptive, fraudulent, or illegal activity, or prosecute those responsible for such activities. · Debug products to identify and repair errors that impair existing intended functionality.
· Exercise free speech, ensure the right of another consumer to exercise their free speech rights, or exercise another right provided for by law. · Comply with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code §1546 et seq.)
· Engage in public or peer reviewed scientific, historical, or statistical research in the public interest that adheres to all other applicable ethics and privacy laws, when the information’s deletion may likely render impossible or seriously impair the research’s achievement, if you previously provided informed consent. · Enable solely internal uses that are reasonably aligned with consumer expectations based on your relationship with us.
· Comply with a legal obligation.
· Make other internal and lawful uses of that information that are compatible with the context in which you provided it.
· Or if it is the type of personal information that falls outside the scope of the CCPA, (HIPAA, CIMA, GLBA, or publicly available information)
Opt-Out of Sale
Opt-In to Sale
With some limitations, you may direct a business that sells personal information to third parties not to sell the personal information to these third parties.

A business may not sell the personal information of persons less than sixteen years of age without their affirmative consent, and in the case of those less than thirteen years of age, the consent must come from a parent.

Non-Discrimination We will not discriminate against you for exercising your rights under the CCPA. Unless otherwise permitted by the CCPA we will not:
· Deny you goods or service
· Charge you different prices or rates for goods or services, including through granting discounts or other benefits, or imposing penalties
· Provide a different level or quality of goods or services · Suggest that you will receive a different price or rate for goods or services or a different level or quality of goods or services
2 To Exercise Your Rights
To Opt-out of the Sale of Your Personal Information
The CCPA gives consumers the right to direct a business that sells personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell the consumer’s personal information. We do not sell and will not sell your personal information as that term is commonly understood. We also do not sell and will not sell your personal information, as that term is defined by the CCPA.

To Request Access to or Deletion of Your Personal Information To exercise your access or deletion rights described above, please submit a verifiable consumer request to us by either: Calling us at 1-855-557-8437 or contacting us through our website CCPA Consumer Request.

Only you or your representative that you authorize to act on your behalf (Authorized Agent) can make a verifiable consumer request for your personal information. You may also make a request for your minor child. The verifiable request must provide enough information that allows us to reasonably verify you are the person about whom we collected personal information. We cannot respond to your request or provide you with personal information if we cannot verify your identity or authority to make the request and to confirm the personal information relates to you.

We work to respond to a verifiable consumer request within 45 days of its receipt. If we require additional time, we will inform you of the extension period (up to an additional 45 days), and the reason for the extension in writing. If you have an account with us, we will deliver our response to that account. If you do not have an account with us, we will deliver our response by mail or electronically, depending on your preference. The response we provide will also explain any reasons why we cannot comply with a request.

You may only make a consumer request for access twice within a twelve-month period.

Any disclosures we provide will apply to the twelve-month period preceding the consumer request’s receipt.

Contact Us
If you have any questions regarding our Privacy Notice or practices, please contact us via phone at 1- 855-557-8437 or send your written request to: [email protected], or Old Republic Title c/o CCPA Consumer Request Group, 275 Battery Street, Suite1500, San Francisco, CA 94111-3334.

Appendix I - Personnel Profile
EDI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Brian Tang, EIT Sr. Project Manager

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Brian Tang is a Senior Project Manager at EDI Consultants, Inc. (EDI) in Torrance, California. Mr. Tang has more than 6 year of experience in projects involving due diligence environmental site assessments, property condition assessments, data management, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), subsurface investigations of soil and groundwater contamination, environmental and geotechnical engineering projects for high profile clients throughout the nation.

At EDI, Mr. Tang manages a team performing Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, Property Condition Assessments, and other environmental risk assessments for major U.S. banks and lending institutions throughout the nation. In addition, he prepares and reviews technical documents for Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments.

Mr. Tang is an Environmental Professional who possesses sufficient specific education, training, and experience necessary to exercise professional judgment to develop opinions and conclusions regarding conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases on, at, in, or to a property, sufficient to meet the objectives and performance factors.

As an Environmental Professional, Mr. Tang must hold a current Professional Engineer’s or Professional Geologist’s license or registration from a state, tribe, or U.S. territory (or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and have the equivalent of three (3) years of full-time relevant experience; or (ii) be licensed or certified by the federal government, a state, tribe, or U.S. territory (or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) to perform environmental inquiries and have the equivalent of three (3) years of full-time relevant experience; or (iii) have a Baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher education in a discipline of engineering or science and the equivalent of five (5) years of full-time relevant experience; or (iv) have the equivalent of ten (10) years of full-time relevant experience.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Nationwide Project Manager of Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments for industrial and commercial real estate as well as multifamily dwellings for major U.S. banks and lending institutions throughout the nation. Conducted subsurface investigations of soil, groundwater and soil vapor contamination to assess and determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation as well as underground storage tank removals, cleanup and coordination with local and State governmental agencies for closure of same.

Property Condition Assessments, Nationwide
Project manager for more than 100 property condition assessments (PCAs) for a wide range of clients throughout the western United States. PCAs provide reliable and detailed information on the building's operating systems, overall design and architectural features, and any signs of material physical deterioration or functional obsolescence that could detract from the building's potential to generate income. In addition, he has examined the impact of local zoning regulations, building codes, and any special hazards that may affect the income stability of the property.

EDUCATION
B.S. Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 2013 Undergraduate Experience
Well Water Treatment
The purpose of this project is to design two shallow ground water wells for the City of Corona to reduce the demand on the Colorado River by 3,600 acre-ft per year. The project includes the design of an 11,500 ft pipeline to transport the raw well water as well as a treatment facility to treat for turbidity, nitrates, and perchlorates.

EDI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Brian Tang, EIT Sr. Project Manager
Site Planning Report
The goal of this project is to complete a Site Planning Report incompliance of the City of Irvine General Plan for the development of a 1,200 acre planning area centered on a transportation theme of alternative fuels. The planning area is composed of 3,200 dwelling units, a shopping center, a high school, recreational parks and open space to support a population of about 13,000 residents.

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
Environmental Professional
Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologist – Certified Engineer-in-Training (EIT) EDI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darrin Domingo, MBA, REPA, CHMM Principal
__________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Darrin Domingo is the Principal and founder of EDI Consultants, Inc. (EDI) in Torrance, California. Mr.

Domingo has more than 27 years of experience in projects involving due diligence environmental site assessments, property condition assessments, data management and database design, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), cost engineering, subsurface investigations of soil and groundwater contamination, and environmental and geotechnical engineering projects including civil and remediation design.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Various Clients, Phase I, Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Nationwide. Project manager for more than 5,000 combined Phase I, Phase II environmental site assessments for industrial and commercial real estate as well as multifamily dwellings for major U.S. banks and lending institutions throughout the nation. Conducted subsurface investigations of soil, soil gas and groundwater contamination to assess and determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation as well as underground storage tank removals, cleanup and coordination with local and State governmental agencies for closure of same.

Various Clients, Property Condition Assessments, Nationwide. Project manager for more than 100 property condition assessments (PCAs) for a wide range of clients throughout the western United States. PCAs provide reliable and detailed information on the building's operating systems, overall design and architectural features, and any signs of material physical deterioration or functional obsolescence that could detract from the building's potential to generate income. In addition, he has examined the impact of local zoning regulations, building codes, and any special hazards that may affect the income stability of the property.

SWDiv CLEAN, Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), El Toro MCAS, California GIS and database administrator for the Environmental Baseline Survey of over 1000 structures at El Toro MCAS. Prepared comprehensive maps of the MCAS El Toro in a Geographic Information System (GIS), by combining information gathered during the site evaluation with existing and planned information. The GIS was developed in ArcView for GIS analysis and the preparation of maps; and Microsoft Access for the storage and analysis of attribute data. Attribute data was collected in the field via a customized Palm Pilot interface.

Responsible for application development of the Palm Pilot EBS Form for data acquisition in the field and seamless downloading of information into the database. Attribute data encompassed site information including pertinent environmental, land use, and watershed data. Also, field sketches and digital photo notes were entered into the Palm Pilot and converted to bitmap images within the database for retrieval of same. Responsible for uploading and management of all data for queries, analyses, and either output for use in the GIS maps; or Report Tables within the EBS.

SWDiv CLEAN, Naval Environmental Data Transfer Standard (NEDTS), El Toro MCAS, California. GIS and database administrator for groundwater, soil and vapor analytical data. Developed the Navy Environmental Data Transfer Standard (NEDTS) database and Data Management Plan (DMP) for the Southwest Division Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy, El Toro Marine Corps Air Station. The NEDTS provides an open, platform independent standard that permits the Navy to describe information to be captured and delivered electronically without imposing any hardware or software requirements on the contracting community. This application automates day-to-day activities of integrating electronic data deliverables (EDD) from analytical laboratories and presenting the information in customized forms and reports. The application is developed utilizing MS Access as the data repository. ESRI's ArcView GIS and Autodesk's Volo View technology are integrated with the database to provide dynamic maps of on-site monitoring wells. A customized switchboard interface allows for automated retrieval of as-built drawings, charts, reports, and GIS views.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Metadata Reference System, Redlands, California. Lead technical and database administrator for the Metadata Reference System for the Redlands site. Developed records management plan for administration of office-wide project data and records management system for efficient gathering, storage, and retrieval of all related electronic and hardcopy data.

EDI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darrin Domingo, MBA, REPA, CHMM Principal
__________________________________________________________________________ SWDiv RAC, Naval Environmental Data Transfer Standard (NEDTS), Yermo and Nebo Marine Corp Logistics Bases, Barstow, California. Database design and management of the Navy's Southwest Division Remedial Action Contract (SWDiv RAC) databases for both Yermo and Nebo MCLBs. Developed and implemented NEDTS in a client/server architecture (Access 2000/SQL Server) for integration of data into ArcView GIS for mapping and spatial analysis of various subsurface contaminants. Used ESRI's Spatial Analyst and ModelBuilder extensions to map and analyze areas of contaminant influence, delineate plume extents, and generate contours.

New Cure, Inc., OII Landfill MIS/GIS System, Monterey Park, California. GIS Analyst and Database Administrator working in a design-build capacity to facilitate implementation of a remedial cap design for an EPA Superfund site. Provided AutoCAD and LDD civil/remediation design, hazardous waste management via programming and development of the management information system (MIS) using MS Access and the GIS for associated landfill hazardous materials and gases integrating ESRI's ArcView. Conducted environmental modeling and statistical and trend analysis of methane migration via ESRI's ArcView Spatial Analyst and 3D Analyst extensions. In coordination with the landfill gas consultant, designed and implemented the Well Adjustment Decision Tree programmed in Access for automated well adjustments in the field. Created automated data transfer procedure from GEM 2000 units into Access for analyzing gas composition and calculating flow. Trained staff technicians on effective use of the MIS/GIS System, Well Adjustment Decision Tree, as well as data collection and importing procedures.

Owner, Kyoto Plaza, Gardena, California. Operated and maintained soil vapor extraction system at Kyoto Plaza. Collected air (vapor) samples and conducted evaluation of vacuum, influent/effluent data. Developed MS Access data repository, which included but were not limited to integration of historical vapor extraction data into a standardized relational database design. Responsible for data management and modeling.

Southern California Gas Company, PAH Removal and Geotechnical Investigation, Hanford, California.

Supervised and managed the removal of PAH-impacted soil, including subsurface investigation, sampling, and recompaction of fill soil. Ensured and designed proper grading of site utilizing Autodesk's Survey.

Home Savings of America, UST Removal and Upgrade, Irwindale, California. Supervised the removal and replacement of underground storage tanks, clarifiers, and hydraulic lifts at the corporate headquarters of Home Savings of America in Irwindale, CA. Also, performed subsurface investigation and confirmation sampling to achieve closure within the required Los Angeles County and state regulations.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Geotechnical Oversight for Red Line Segment 2 and 3, Los Angeles/Hollywood, California. Geotechnical engineer responsible for subsurface investigation and construction monitoring of geological conditions via geological/geotechnical mapping at the tunnel face.

Performed geotechnical engineering analysis of settlement data in cooperation with land survey teams and staff geologists/geotechs at the tunnel face during tunnel excavation along Hollywood and Vermont Boulevards.

Performed laboratory testing and interpretation of soils, field observation, fill testing, geotechnical engineering analysis including slope stability analysis, utilization of AutoCAD for grading and drainage plans, hydrologic analysis, and geotechnical report preparation.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Advanced Public Transportation Systems Group, Los Angeles, California. Provided computer mapping and analysis of traffic data via MapInfo GIS. Created maps using MapInfo in support of various transportation tasks and updated traffic data in the APTS data repository built in MS Access. Assisted in the project management of the Smart Traveler Kiosk Project and the I110 Vanpool Support Program.

EDI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darrin Domingo, MBA, REPA, CHMM Principal
__________________________________________________________________________

EDUCATION
MBA, Business Administration (emphasis in GIS), University of Redlands, California, 2001 BS, Geography - Ecosystems & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, 1993

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
Registered Environmental Property Assessor, No. 64277
Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM), No. 11546 Asbestos Inspector, California, IBFA-370-98
Alliance of Hazardous Materials Professionals (AHMP)
Environmental Bankers Association

SPECIAL TRAINING
OSHA 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations Training
OSHA 8-hour Hazardous Waste Operations Annual Refresher Training OSHA 8-hour Hazardous Waste Operations Site Supervisor Training GIS Management Certificate of Completion, ESRI International User Conference Environmental Modeling Using Spatial Analyst, Certificate of Completion, ESRI International User Conference Advanced ArcView Certificate of Completion, ESRI
Database Development and Conversion, URISA Annual Conference and Exposition RACER (Remedial Action Cost Engineering & Requirements System) APPENDIX C.1
LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc.,
Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Proposed 4-Story Apartment Building
Over 2-Level Subterranean Parking Garage,
APN's 6347-011-013 & -019 and 3647-012-008,
116-136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
October 2, 2020.
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc.
10120 National Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90034
Engineer: 626.328.4346; Geologist: 310.866.8977

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED 4-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING
OVER 2-LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE
APN’S 6347-011-013 & -019 AND 3647-012-008
116 - 136 N. POPLAR AVENUE

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA
October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
FOR
Magna & Magna, Inc.
1520 Washington Boulevard, #100
Montebello, CA 90640
Attn: Mr. Mark D. Magna, President
October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
Magna & Magna, Inc.
1520 Washington Boulevard, #100
Montebello, CA 90640
Attn: Mr. Mark D. Magna, President
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Proposed 4-Story Apartment Building Over 2-Level Subterranean Parking Garage
APN’s 6347-011-013 & -019 and 6347-012-008
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Dear Mr. Magna,
Pursuant to your request, LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation and prepared this report for the subject proposed development at the site. The primary objective of this investigation was to provide our best estimate of the geotechnical factors that pertain to the gross stability of the proposed improvement and to evaluate alternatives for a foundation system for the proposed structures.

The report includes a description and an evaluation of the soil materials and provides soils engineering recommendations for construction of the proposed improvement. This report is intended for submittal to the appropriate governmental authorities that control the issuance of necessary permits.

Based on our findings, the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and are implemented during construction of the project.

If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please feel free to call this office.

Sincerely,
LK GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, INC.

Sean Lin, G.E. 2921
Principal Engineer
SL:mk
October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................ 1

1.1. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2. FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................. 1

1.4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION .................................................... 1

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ........................... 1

2.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 1

2.2. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 2

3. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................. 2

3.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 2

3.2. SUBSURFACE EARTH MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 2

3.2.1. Artificial Fill (Af) ................................................................................................................ 2

3.2.2. Older Alluvium (Qae) ...................................................................................................... 2

3.3. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................ 3

4. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION ................................. 3

4.1. SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES EVALUATION ............................................................................... 3

4.1.1. Earthquake Fault Zone .................................................................................................. 3

4.1.2. Soil Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................ 4

4.2. CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................. 4

5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 5

5.1. GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 5

5.2. EXPANSIVE SOIL EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 6

5.3. COLLAPSIBLE SOIL EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 6

5.4. CORROSIVE SOIL EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 6

5.5. STORMWATER INFILTRATION EVALUATION ........................................................................ 7

5.6. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK ................................................................................ 7

5.6.1. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation .......................................................... 8

5.6.2. Compaction ....................................................................................................................... 8

5.6.3. Shrinkage/Bulking Due to Compaction ..................................................................... 8

5.6.4. Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................... 9

5.6.5. Weather Related Grading Considerations ............................................................... 9

5.7. TEMPORARY EXCAVATION ..................................................................................................... 9

5.8. TEMPORARY SHORING .......................................................................................................... 10

5.9. CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS FOR BUILDING ....................................................................... 14

5.10. CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS FOR ANCILLARY STRUCTURES .......................................... 15

5.11. FLOOR SLAB-ON-GRADE ...................................................................................................... 15

5.12. MOISTURE RETARDER ........................................................................................................... 16

5.13. RETAINING WALLS ................................................................................................................. 16

5.14. HARDSCAPE ............................................................................................................................ 17

5.15. PAVEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 17

5.16. DRAINAGE PROTECTION ....................................................................................................... 18

5.17. PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY ............................................................................................. 18 October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
iii

6. SECTION 111 STATEMENT ....................................................................... 18

7. GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 19

8. LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 21

9. REFERENCES............................................................................................. 24 List of Plates
Plate 1 – Site Plan and Geotechnical Exploration Map
Plate 2 – Regional Geologic Map
Plate 3 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Plate 4 – Historically Highest Groundwater Map
Plate CS-1 – Geologic Cross Section A-A’
Plate CS-2 – Geologic Cross Section B-B’
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Field Exploration
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – Engineering Calculations and Details
October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

1. SCOPE OF WORK
To prepare this report, we have performed the tasks described in the following subsections:

1.1. Literature Review
We reviewed geological literature including geologic maps, topographic maps and aerial photographs relevant to the subject site in preparation of this report. A list of literature reviewed is presented in the “References” section of this report.

1.2. Field Exploration
We performed a field exploration consisting of logging of five (5) exploratory soil borings on July 23, 2020. The exploration was performed using an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger drill rig and hand tools. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 61 feet below the existing grade. The approximate locations of the geotechnical exploration are shown on Plate 1. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered during drilling are presented in Appendix A – Field Exploration.

1.3. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Representative soil samples collected from our field exploration were delivered to the E.G.L., Inc. (EGL) of Arcadia, California for testing, and to evaluate relevant engineering properties. The detailed laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B – Laboratory Testing. Based on our review of the laboratory data, LKGE concurs with and accept the laboratory testing results performed by E.G.L., Inc.

1.4. Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation
We compiled all geological and geotechnical data obtained from literature review, field exploration and laboratory test results, and then prepared this report to present our findings and the geotechnical recommendations, including seismic considerations, grading, foundations, foundation setback, retaining walls, floor slabs, temporary excavations, and drainage.

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of removing the existing structures and constructing a 140-unit, 4-story apartment building over 2-level subterranean parking garage. The proposed basement finish grade is approximately 22 feet below the existing street grade. The proposed building is shown on Plate 1 – Site Plan and Geotechnical Exploration Map and Plate CS-1 – Proposed Building Sections.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

2.2. Site Description
The project site is located at 116 – 136 N. Poplar Avenue, in the City of Montebello, California. The site is bounded by Poplar Avenue on the west, a 2-story motel on the south, single family house to the north, and a retaining wall to the east.

The site consists of three lots: 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue. The structures at site consists of a 2- to 3-story apartment complex and parking lot (116 N. Poplar), and 1- to 2- story multi-family dwellings (128 and 136 N. Poplar), retaining wall, landscape and mature trees. The eastern property line rear portion
The site exhibits elevation relief of approximately 15 feet across the site. The rear parking lot of 116 and 128 N. Poplar Avenue is supported by an existing 12- to 15-feet retaining wall along eastern property line. Drainage across the site is by uncontrolled sheet flow to the adjacent sidewalks and drainage course, as well as by infiltration within unpaved area.

3. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1. Regional Geology
According to the Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangle (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 1999), the project the site is underlain by Older Alluvium (geologic map symbol Qae). This material composes primarily sandy silt to silty sand. A portion of the geologic map is reproduced as Plate 2 – Regional Geologic Map.

3.2. Subsurface Earth Materials
Based on our field exploration, the earth materials observed at the site consist of artificial fill and older alluvium.

3.2.1. Artificial Fill (Af)
Artificial fill consisting of red brown to dark brown sandy clay, clayey sand and silty sand with man-made debris was encountered in our exploratory borings. The observed maximum thickness of the artificial fill was on the order of 15- to 16-feet in our borings B1 and B-2 where appears to be the backfill placed behind the existing perimeter retaining walls to create level parking lot. We anticipate the artificial fill depths may vary across the site. This material is considered unsuitable for foundation or slab support or for receiving new compacted fill.

3.2.2. Older Alluvium (Qae)
Older Alluvium consisting of orange brown to brown sandy clay to clayey sand/ silty sand and gravelly silty sand was encountered in our exploratory borings at the site. Older alluvium was observed to be medium stiff to very stiff and dry to moist. The undisturbed older alluvium is considered suitable for foundation or slab support for the proposed structures and/or for support of new compacted fill, provided that our recommendations are followed and integrated into the improvement plans.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

3.3. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory boring to a maximum depth of 61 feet below existing grade. According to the State of California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the El Monte Quadrangle, the site is located within an area with historically highest groundwater level reportedly at approximately between 20- and 50-feet below ground surface (Plate 4). It appears the 20-feet historical groundwater contour line is based on the ground elevation along Rio Hondo channel, which is approximately 30 feet below the Poplar Avenue. Therefore, the groundwater level appears to be well below the level of the proposed structures. It should be noted that local fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall, irrigation and water line leaks.

4. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION

4.1. Seismic Hazard Zones Evaluation
The southern California region is seismically active and commonly experiences strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes along active faults. Ground shaking resulting from a moderate to major earthquake (Magnitude 6.0 or greater) can be expected during the lifespan of the existing and/or proposed structures. Property owners and the general public should be aware that any structure or slope in the southern California region could be subject to significant damage as a result of a moderate or major earthquake. The hazards associated with seismic activity in the vicinity of the site are discussed and evaluated in the following sections.

4.1.1. Earthquake Fault Zone
The State of California established the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 which went into effect in 1973. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the construction of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. An "active fault" is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one which had surface displacement within the Holocene era (+/- 11,000 years) and is well defined at the surface. The term “sufficiently active” has been used if there is evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches.

The Act was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act in 1975 and then Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1994. The original designation “Special Studies Zones” has been renamed “Earthquake Fault Zones”. Under the Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) along active faults in California. Development within these zones must include geologic investigations demonstrating that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) is required to delineate active faults, compile maps of EFZs and submit such Official Maps to the public and continually review and revise EFZs based on new geologic and seismic data. EFZ boundaries on early maps were positioned about 660 feet (200 meters) away from the fault traces to accommodate imprecise locations of the faults and possible existence of active branches. The policy since 1997 is to position the EFZ boundaries about 500 feet (150 October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

meters) away from major active faults and about 200 to 300 feet (60 to 90 meters) away from well defined, minor faults.

Based on our review of California Geological Survey 2018 seismic hazard zones map (Plate 3), the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest known fault is the Elsinore Fault which is mapped about 2.5 miles east of the site.

4.1.2. Soil Liquefaction Potential
Soil liquefaction occurs when the pore pressures generated within a soil mass approach the effective overburden pressure. Liquefaction of soils may be caused by cyclic loading such as that imposed by ground shaking during earthquakes. The increase in pore pressure results in a loss of strength, and the soil then can undergo both horizontal and vertical movements, depending on the site conditions. Other phenomena associated with soil liquefaction include sand boils, ground oscillation, and loss of foundation bearing capacity. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in loose, saturated, relatively clean, fine-grained cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Factors to consider in the evaluation of soil liquefaction potential include groundwater conditions, soil type, grain size distribution, relative density, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground motion.

Based on our review of California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Plate 3), the site is not located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone. Based on dense older alluvium and lack of shallow groundwater, the soil liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. Consequently seismically-induced settlement is negligible.

4.2. CBC Seismic Design Parameters
The future structures should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with the applicable seismic building code. Based on our geotechnical investigation, the subject site is classified as Site Class D in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code that refers to the ASCE 7-16.

Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, structures shall be designed for the seismic response coefficient Cs determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5 Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5 Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T > TL, where
T = the fundamental period of the building
Ts = SD1/SDS
TL = long-period transition period
The design spectral response acceleration parameters presented on the following table generated by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) website, may be utilized for seismic design:

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

Site location (latitude, longitude): (34.0090, -118.0992) Spectral Period, T
(second)
MCER ground
motion (g)
Site-modified
Spectral acceleration (g)
Seismic design
acceleration (g)

0.2 Ss = 1.881 Fa = 1.0 SMS = 1.881 SDS = 1.254

1.0 S1 = 0.671 Fv = 1.7 SM1 = 1.140 SD1 = 0.760
Site modified peak ground acceleration PGAM = 0.893 g
Long-period transition period TL = 8 second
Seismic Design Category = D
If seismic response coefficient Cs recommended above is not applicable for structural design, our office can perform a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis upon the project structural engineer’s request.

Present building codes and construction practices, and the recommendations presented in this report, are intended to minimize structural damage to buildings and prevent loss of life as a result of a moderate or a major earthquake. They are not intended to totally prevent damage to structures, graded slopes and natural hillsides due to moderate or major earthquakes. While it may be possible to design structures and graded slopes to withstand strong ground motion, the construction costs associated with such designs are usually prohibitive, and the design restrictions may be severely limiting. Earthquake insurance is often the only economically feasible form of protection for your property against major earthquake damage. Damage to sidewalks, steps, decks, patios and similar exterior improvements can be expected as these are not normally controlled by the building code.

5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Geotechnical Overview
Based on the findings of our investigation, the site is considered to be suitable from a soils engineering standpoint for construction of the proposed structures, provided the recommendations included herein are followed and integrated into the building and/or grading plans.

The following is a list of geotechnical considerations for this project:
 Up to 16-feet-thick undocumented artificial fill was encountered in the eastern portion of the site. The bottom of fill is situated at elevation of 184 feet approximately based on our borings. This material is not suitable for foundation support. We recommend all existing fill be removed and recompacted. Because the undocumented fill depths are various across the site. We recommend that the proposed building be supported entirely on a uniform compacted fill blanket per our recommendations presented in “Site Preparation and Earthwork” section.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

 Temporary shoring will be required along the property lines where space constraint is present. The recommendations are presented in “Temporary Shoring” section.  Based on our review of laboratory testing results, the on-site soil has “low” expansive potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the expansive soil mitigation.
 On-site near surface soil is considered “corrosive” to ferrous metal based on the laboratory testing results.

Our geotechnical engineering analyses performed for this report were based on the preliminary information provided to us. If the design substantially changes, then our geotechnical engineering recommendations would be subject to revision based on our evaluation of the changes.

5.2. Expansive Soil Evaluation
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported on-grade, or pavements supported over these materials.

Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed construction.

Based on our review of laboratory testing results, the on-site near surface soil has “medium” expansive potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the expansive soil mitigation.

5.3. Collapsible Soil Evaluation
Based on our review of the laboratory testing results, the on-site near surface soil has “slightly” collapsible potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the mitigation for collapsible soil.

5.4. Corrosive Soil Evaluation
The potential for the near-surface on-site materials to corrode buried steel and concrete improvements was evaluated preliminarily. In accordance with the Caltrans Corrosive Guidelines, corrosive soil is defined as the soil has a pH less than 5.5, or chloride concentration greater than 500 ppm, or sulfate concentration in soils greater than 2,000 ppm, or minimum resistivity less than 1,000 ohm-centimeters. Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents.

These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Based on our review of laboratory test results, the followings are our findings:
 The potential for chloride attack of reinforcing steel in concrete structures and pipes in contact with on-site soil is negligible.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

 The potential for sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soil is negligible in accordance with ACI 318, Table 4.3.1. As a minimum, we recommend that Type I or II cement and a water-cement ratio of no greater than 0.5 be used on the project.
 Based on soil resistivity results, the on-site soil is considerred corrosive to buried ferrous metals. In general, conventional corrosion protection measures for metal in contact with soil may include the following:
o Underground steel utilities should be given a high-quality protective coating such as 40 mil extruded polyethylene, 20 mil plastic tape over primer per AWWA Standard C209, or hot applied coal tar enamel or tape per AWWA Standard C203.
o All underground steel should be electrically insulated from above ground steel, dissimilar metals, and cement-mortar or concrete coated steel. o Underground steel pipe should be bonded for electrical continuity if rubbergasketed, mechanical, grooved-end, or other non-conductive type joints are used. In addition, cathode protection is recommended for underground steel utilities.

If special corrosion protection is required for certain performance criteria determined by the project designer, a corrosion specialist should be consulted regarding suitable types of piping and appropriate protection for underground metal conduits.

5.5. Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation
The proposed building covers essentially the entire property. It is our opinion that it is very difficult to design an efficient “infiltration-type” stormwater treatment system with appropriate foundation setback at the site. In addition, infiltration of stormwater at the site may change groundwater level and increase the potential of soil liquefaction hazard that ultimately impacts foundation stability. On this basis, it is our opinion that it is not suitable to use the “infiltration-type” stormwater treatment system for LID design at the site. We recommend that an alternative system (i.e. filtration-type bio-planter, etc.) be evaluated by the project civil engineer.

5.6. Site Preparation and Earthwork
Prior to construction/grading, the area of the proposed development should be clear of any loose surficial soils, vegetation and/or man-made debris. Demolition debris and other unsuitable materials should be stripped and removed from the site. Water lines or other old utility lines or installations to be abandoned should be removed or crushed in place. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be backfilled with compacted soils.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

5.6.1. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation
The proposed subterranean garage floor elevation is expected to be approximately 22 feet below Poplar Avenue. Artificial fill and older alluvium are expected to be exposed at the proposed garage floor elevation. To create a uniform foundation support, we recommend over-excavate at least 5 feet below the proposed finish grade, or 3 feet below footings, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper. The lateral extent of the over-excavation should be at least 5 feet beyond the building line (where space permits) or equidistant to the thickness of fill below footing, whichever is greater.

For any light-weight ancillary structures (i.e. property line fence walls, canopies, trash enclosure, etc.), we recommend over-excavate at least 1 foot below the proposed footing bottom, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper. The lateral extent of the over-excavation should be equidistant to the thickness of fill below footing (where space permits).

For on-grade pavement and hardscape (patios, steps, walkways, etc.), we recommend over-excavate at least 1 foot below the subgrade, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper, and then recompact to 90% relative compaction.

Any excavated bottoms for footings or to receive new compacted fill should be inspected and approved by a representative from LKGE. prior to compaction work. Deeper excavations may be required in areas where soft, saturated, or unsuitable materials, for example, tree root balls or undocumented fill are encountered.

5.6.2. Compaction
On-site materials are considered to be suitable for compaction, provided that all deleterious materials and oversized rocks (larger than 6-inches in size) are removed from the site prior to compaction.

All new compacted fill should be supported on firm native soil and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the current ASTM D1557 and at about 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple wheel pneumatic tired rollers, or other appropriate compacting rollers.

It may be necessary to import soils to the site to be used as compacted fill. Imported materials should be a sandy type of material and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to transporting to the job site. The sandy material should not have an Expansion Index exceeding 20 and should not contain rocks larger than 6-inches in size.

5.6.3. Shrinkage/Bulking Due to Compaction
Based on our review of the in-situ soil density data, preliminary volumetric shrinkage on the order of 10 to 15 percent as a result of compaction of onsite soil may be assumed.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

5.6.4. Excavation Characteristics
The earth materials underlying the site should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthwork equipment in good working condition. Some gravels, cobbles and man-made debris should be anticipated within the fill soils. Local caved-in conditions should be anticipated in the sandy soil during temporary excavation.

5.6.5. Weather Related Grading Considerations
When rain is forecasted, we recommend all critical excavated bottoms, footings or trenches be covered with plastic sheeting to minimize subgrade soil saturation, and for the ease of removal of water.

Fill soil that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be properly compacted prior to rains. These fills, once compacted, shall have the surface sloped to drain to an area (temporary catch basin/detention basin) where water can be removed.

Temporary drainage devices should be installed to collect and transfer excess water to the street in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundation or retaining wall.

Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope.

Once the earthwork is ready to resume after rainfall, the excavations and/or compaction conditions should be observed by this firm. Any soils saturated by the rain shall be removed and air-dried/mixed with dry materials for proper compaction. We will recommend additional mitigation measures based on the actual site conditions, if needed.

5.7. Temporary Excavation
Based on the proposed subterranean garage floor and over-excavation & recompaction, the height of temporary excavation is expected to be up to 27 feet. Where the space constraint is present, temporary shoring will be required and the recommendations are presented in “Temporary Shoring” section.

For other general temporary excavations, the maximum recommended height of unsurcharged, temporary vertical excavations in the earth materials at the site is 5 feet.

Excavations above this height should be trimmed to a 1:1 (H:V) ratio where the space is available. Surcharge loads, including construction vehicles and materials, should not be placed within five (5) feet of the unsupported excavation edge. Some sloughing of cohesionless sandy materials encountered at the site should be expected.

Excavations shall not remove the lateral support from a public way, from an adjacent property or from an existing structure. Where space for sloped excavations is not available, slot-cut or temporary shoring (trench box) may be utilized.

Surfaces exposed in slope excavations should be kept moist but not saturated to minimize raveling and sloughing during construction. Adequate provisions should be made to protect the slopes from erosion during periods of rainfall. Water should not be allowed to pond on October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

the top of the excavation or to flow towards it. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation.

All excavations shall be made in accordance with the regulations of the State of California, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, (Cal/OSHA). These recommended temporary excavation slopes do not preclude local raveling and sloughing. Provided our recommendations are followed, the resulting temporary excavations are anticipated to be safe from a geotechnical standpoint for the proposed construction operations and should not expose workers to hazards due to cave-ins, provided that geologic conditions exposed by the excavations are as anticipated.

Confined or trench excavations (i.e. retaining walls or utility trench excavations) should be made in accordance with the regulations of the State of California, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). We recommend that confined excavations should be shored using hydraulic shoring, screw jacks or timber shoring, as determined by the project engineer.

All temporary excavations at the site should be observed and monitored by our representative to verify soil conditions so that any necessary modifications can be made based on variations of soil encountered at the site. Surcharged temporary excavations and shoring should be continuously observed by our representative. If adverse conditions are encountered during excavations, additional recommendations will be provided.

It is recommended that a pre-excavation site meeting be attended by the grading contractor, the soils engineer and an agency representative to discuss methods and sequence of excavation.

5.8. Temporary Shoring
Based on the proposed subterranean garage floor and foundation elevations, the height of temporary excavation is expected to be up to 27 feet. Due to the space constrains of property lines, temporary shoring will be required.

In general, for excavations less than 15 feet in height, a cantilevered shoring system may be used. For excavations greater than 15 feet in height, a restrained (i.e. tied-back or braced) shoring system may be used. All shoring systems shall have lagging to support the cut face between soldier piles.

Shoring shall be designed by a California licensed engineer experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions. Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and the design should be reviewed by LKGE for conformance with the design intent and recommendations.
 Lateral Earth Pressures
The cantilevered or restrained shoring walls should be designed using the lateral earth pressure presented in the attached Plate SW-1 and the following table:

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

Shoring Type Lateral Earth Pressure* Pressure Distribution Cantilevered Shoring 36H psf Triangular Distribution
Restrained Shoring
(Tied-back/Braced Shoring) 23H psf Trapezoidal Distribution (see Plate SW-1)
* H = wall height
 Surcharge Loads
Any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1:1 plane projected upward from the base of the shored excavation, including adjacent structures, should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the temporary shoring may be calculated by multiplying the vertical surcharge pressure by 0.30. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 240 psf vertical uniform surcharge is recommended to account for nominal construction and/or traffic loads. More detailed lateral pressure and loading information can be provided, if needed, for specific loading scenarios as recognized through the design process.
 Soldier Piles for Shoring
Soldier piles should be at least 18-inch in diameter and should be designed for an allowable passive resistance of 300 pcf (equivalent fluid weight). The passive resistance value can be doubled If pile spacing is greater than 2.5D on center where D is the diameter of the drilled shaft for the soldier piles. The downward axial capacity of soldier pile can be designed for an allowable skin friction of 400 psf. The upper 1.5D should be neglected when calculating the axial capacity below the excavated level. Structural concrete should be used for the soldier piles below the excavation, sand-cement slurry may be used above the excavation where lagging will be installed.

Drilling of the soldier pile shafts can be accomplished using conventional drilling equipment.

In the event of soil caving, it may be necessary to use casing and/or drilling mud to permit the installation of the soldier piles. Drilled holes for soldier piles should not be left open overnight. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after the drilling of the hole is complete.

The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie. Once concrete pumping is initiated, the bottom of the tremie should remain below the surface of the concrete to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed.

Due to the proximity of the excavation to existing improvements, some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. Monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of lateral and vertical locations at the tops of all soldier piles. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

design of the shoring system has been finalized. Also, we should review the shoring plans and calculations to evaluate whether our recommendations have been incorporated into the design.
 Lagging
Continuous treated timber lagging should be used between the soldier piles. The lagging can be designed for the recommended lateral earth pressure but limited to a maximum of 400 psf with consideration of soil arching. If treated timber is used, the lagging may remain in place. To develop the full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the soils; for this, we recommend that at least 1.5-sack sand-cement slurry fill be used behind the lagging.
 Tie-back Anchors
For design of the tieback anchors, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees from the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. These anchors should extend to a minimum of 20 feet beyond the potential active wedge and to a greater length as necessary to develop the desired capacities. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the assumed active wedge should be included in the tie-back design. Tie-back anchors may be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below a horizontal plane.

For the design of pressure-grouted anchors, the grout-to-ground bond strength of 2,500 psf along the bonded zone may be used. The capacity of the anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as presented in “Tie-back Anchor Testing” Section.

The anchors should be filled with concrete/grout by pumping from the tip out. To minimize caving, we suggest that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand-cement slurry. The sand-cement mixture should fill the portion of the tieback anchor tightly and should be flush with the face of the shoring when finished.

After tie-back anchor is no longer needed to support the excavation, stress should be carefully released and shoring system including tieback may be able to be left in place.

Installation Guidelines

1. Tie-back installation shall be performed during continuous observation by LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. to confirm that the recommended earth materials are penetrated, that the dimensions of the installed anchors are at least as large as that indicated on the shoring plan, and that anchor installation has been performed as specified. The Contractor shall provide access and necessary facilities, including lighting, at their expense, to accommodate observations.

2. All anchors shall be installed at the specified locations, to the required depth, and at the specified angle of inclination. A tolerance of 3o will be permitted on the required angle of inclination.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

3. After drilling, all holes shall be cleaned of loose soils. Concrete shall be placed by pumping from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. Concrete placement shall begin within four hours after completion of drilling. The portion of the anchor within the active wedge shall be backfilled with sand-cement slurry after the anchor has been tested as specified below. However, if excessive caving occurs, the active wedge portion of the excavation can be filled with slurry as the casing is pulled. A zone of soft soil shall (in this case) be placed between the anchor and slurry (before testing).

4. If a hollow-stem auger or casing is used due to caving, concrete shall be placed by pumping as the auger or casing is withdrawn while always maintaining a head of concrete inside the casing or auger.

5. Concrete placement shall be continuous without interruption, and at such a rate that fresh concrete will not be deposited on concrete hardened sufficiently to form seams and planes of weakness.

6. Any anchor deemed by the Owner or Geotechnical Consultant to be defective shall be replaced with substitute anchor(s) as directed by the Owner or Shoring Designer. The cost of installation of such substitute anchors shall be borne by the Contractor. Costs associated with analysis and design of substitute anchor(s) shall also be borne by the Contractor.
 Tie-back Anchor Testing
As an initial guideline, tie-back anchor testing should include 150% and 200% load tests.

We recommend all anchors be check-tested to at least 150% of the designed working load in accordance with the following procedures:
a. Test load anchors to 150% of the design-working load, incrementally noting loads, tendon extensions and soldier pile deflections. Hold load for 15 minutes. After pulling slack, the anchor movement shall not exceed 0.10 inch during the 15-minute load period. If the deflection is acceptable, reduce load to 100% of the design load and lock off.
b. Where an anchor shows excessive movement for additional 15-minute intervals, the load should be reduced until the rate of movement is 0.10 inch per 15 minutes or less. The load at which acceptable movement is attained should be divided by 1.5 to establish the working load of the anchor and additional measures taken to carry the required load.

Geotechnical Consultant shall designate at least 5% of all proposed anchors for 200% load tests. Additional anchor steel reinforcement will likely be required for the 200 percent load test anchors and should be appropriately considered prior to anchor installation. Half of the 200% Test Anchors shall be tested for 30 minutes. The remaining Test Anchors shall be tested for a 24-hour period. Test anchors shall be tested in the following procedures:
a. For the 30-minute test anchors, incrementally load the anchors to 200% of the designworking load noting loads, tendon/bar extensions and soldier pile deflections. Hold load for 30 minutes. Anchor movement shall not exceed 0.3 inch during the 30-minute load October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

period. If the deflection is acceptable, reduce load to design load and lock off; otherwise, reduce the test load by 50% and repeat this step. b. For 24-hour test anchors, incrementally load to 200% and hold for 24 hours; check load after 24 hours. If a pre-stress loss of 8% or less is recorded, restore load to 100% of working load and lock off. If loss of pre-stress exceeds 8%, restore load to 150% of working load and hold for an additional 24 hours. Check load after second 24-hour hold and, if loss of pre-stress is less than 8%; restore to 100% and lock off as before. c. Where an anchor shows a continuous loss of pre-stress during a subsequent 24-hour period, the test load shall continue to be reduced by 50% until loss of pre-stress is negligible. Then the test load shall be divided by 1.5 to establish the working load of that anchor and additional measures taken to carry the required shoring load.

Please note that any anchor pulled more than 12 inches shall not be used. Immediately after testing, the active wedge portion of tieback excavations should be filled with slurry.  Deflections
Certain amount of deflection of a shored embankment will occur. For design of shoring, the maximum deflection shall not exceed ½ inch at the top of the shored embankment where a structure is within 1:1 (H:V) plane projected up from the base of the temporary excavation and for a maximum lateral deflection of 1 inch provided there are no structures within a 1:1 (H:V) plane projected up from the base of temporary excavation.

If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing/anchoring may be necessary to minimize settlement and loss of support of adjacent buildings, streets and/or utilities in adjacent streets and alleys. If desired to reduce the deflection, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design.

5.9. Conventional Footings for Building
Conventional footings can be used for support of the proposed structures, provided footings are founded on compacted fill. The reinforcement of footings shall be designed by the project structural engineer.

Continuous footings should be at least 18 inches in width and at least 24 inches deep from the lowest adjacent grade founded on compacted fill, and may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.

Square footings should be at least 24 inches in width and at least 24 inches deep from the lowest adjacent grade founded on compacted fill, and may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.

The allowable bearing capacity can increase 350 psf for each additional foot of width, and 450 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum allowable capacity of 6,000 psf.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

The bearing pressure given is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.

The estimated static settlement is expected to be less than ¾ inch with differential settlement estimated to be less than ¼ inch within a span of 30 feet. Settlement of the proposed foundation system is expected to occur on initial load application.

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure within alluvium. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used with the dead load forces. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf.

When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third.

5.10. Conventional Footings for Ancillary Structures
For light-weight ancillary structures (e.g. fence walls, trash enclosures, planter walls, etc.), conventional shallow footings can be used, provided that footings are placed on compacted fill per our “Site Preparation and Earthwork” recommendations.

For the design of spread footings for other light-weight structures, we recommend the bottom of square or continuous footings be founded at least 12 inches below the proposed ground surface. A minimum footing width of 18 inches is recommended for square footings and 12 inches for continuous footings. The allowable bearing value for footings with above minimum sizes is 1,500 psf for dead plus live load. Based on the allowable net bearing pressures presented above, static settlement is anticipated to be less than ½ inch.

Differential settlement is expected to be up to one-half of the total settlement over a 30-foot span. Most of the static settlement at the project site is expected to occur immediately after the application of the load.

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used with the dead load forces. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by onethird.

5.11. Floor Slab-on-Grade
Concrete slab-on-grade may be used for the proposed building and should be supported on compacted fill, per the “Site Preparation and Earthwork” recommendations.

Concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with a minimum of #4 rebar spaced not exceeding 16 inches on center, each way. The project structural engineer should design the reinforcement of slab based on the design performance criteria.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

5.12. Moisture Retarder
Slabs to be covered with flooring should be protected by an acceptable plastic vapor retarder/barrier (minimum 10 mil thickness) placed on the firm subgrade. If moisture vapor transmission is a concern to the facility owner, an expert should be consulted to provide additional recommendations for the design and construction of slabs in moisture sensitive flooring areas.

5.13. Retaining Walls
The proposed retaining walls should be designed using the lateral earth pressure in accordance with the attached Plate RW-1 and the following table. Retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height should be designed considering the incremental seismic earth pressures.

Backslope of Retained Material
Horizontal to Vertical
Active
Equivalent Fluid Weight
(pcf)
At-Rest
Equivalent Fluid Weight
(pcf)
Level 43 60
The subterranean basement slab and retaining walls should have adequate waterproofing to prevent wall staining and water infiltration within the basement.

In addition to lateral earth pressures recommended above, any proposed retaining walls should be designed to resist the surcharge imposed by adjacent structures, proposed structures, footings, and/or by adjacent traffic surcharge.

The lateral pressure due to adjacent vertical uniformly distributed loads may be considered lateral pressure equal to 33 percent (Ka = 0.33) of the vertical uniformly distributed loads for the active condition. The lateral pressure due to adjacent vertical uniformly distributed loads may be considered lateral pressure equal to 50 percent (Ko = 0.50) of the vertical uniformly distributed loads for the at-rest condition.

All walls should be effectively waterproofed, provided with an adequate subdrainage system, and backfilled in accordance with the attached “retaining wall backfill and subdrain details” (Plate RWD-1).

Where shoring not allowing standard subdrain outside the wall, the rock pockets may be utilized. The pockets should be a minimum of 12 inches in length, width and depth behind the wood lagging, and be spaced no more than 8 feet on center. The rock pockets shall drain through the wall via a solid pipe to approved non-erosive drainage devices.

The subdrainage system, including outlet locations, should be clearly shown on the building and/or grading plans. The contractor is responsible to ensure that all subdrain outlets are constructed per plan. While all backfill should be compacted to the required density, care should be taken when working close to new walls to prevent excessive lateral pressure.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

Retaining wall waterproofing in preventing moisture intrusion is beyond our scope of work and not the responsibility of LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. We recommend you retain a waterproofing expert to provide waterproofing details, application methods or effectiveness and installations per the project design requirements (if applicable).

5.14. Hardscape
Patios, steps, walkways, etc. are not normally subject to building code requirements for structural support. In order to reduce the potential for distress due to potential settlement, the hardscape should be supported by compacted fill per our “Site Preparation and Earthwork” recommendations. Hardscape slabs reinforcement and control joints should be designed by the structural engineer or architect based on the design performance criteria.

5.15. Pavement
Prior to placing pavement structural section, the subgrade shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations in “Site Preparation and Earthwork” section.

A flexible pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of base material should be used. A flexible pavement section consisting of 4 inches of concrete over 6 inches of base material should be used for service lanes (truck and loading area), if applicable. The base material should be crushed aggregate base.

As an alternative, a rigid pavement section consisting of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) can be used. The traffic loading is expected to be primarily light vehicles.

Recommendations for the rigid concrete pavement design is provided herein on the following table.

Concrete Thickness 5 inches
90 Percent Compacted Subgrade 12 inches
Contraction Joint Spacing 10 ft.

Depth of Joint 1 inch
Compressive Strength of Concrete @ 28 days 3500 psi
Modulus of Rupture of Concrete @ 28 days 550 psi
Concrete slabs should be separated from other structures or fixed objects within or abutting the paved area by isolation joints. This serves to offset the effects of the differential horizontal and vertical movements of the structures which may fracture the concrete slab.

When isolation joints are located where wheel and other loads are applied, the pavement edge at the joint should be thickened by 20 percent or two inches, whichever is greater.

A joint filler should be applied to any new isolated joints within the concrete slab. The joint filler should extend through the slab thickness and should be recessed below the pavement surface so that the joint can be sealed with joint sealant material. The types of joint filler materials recommended include bituminous mastic, bituminous impregnated cellulose or October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

cork, sponge rubber, or resin-bound cork. Joint filler materials should be installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.

5.16. Drainage Protection
All pad and roof drainage should be collected and transferred to the street or an approved area in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond on the pad or against any foundation or retaining wall.

We recommend a minimum 5 percent slope away from the building foundations for a horizontal distance of 3 feet be established for any landscape areas immediately adjacent to the building foundations. In addition, we recommend a minimum 2 percent slope away from the building foundations be established for any impervious surfaces immediately adjacent to the building foundations for a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet. Lastly, we recommend the installation of roof gutters and downspouts which deposit water into a buried drain system be installed instead of discharging surface water into planter areas adjacent to structures.

It is the responsibility of the contractor and ultimately the developer and/or property owner to insure that all drainage devices are installed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans, our recommendations, and the requirements of all applicable municipal agencies. This includes installation and maintenance of all subdrain outlets and surface drainage devices.

It is recommended that watering be limited or stop altogether during the rainy season when little irrigation is required. Over-saturation of the ground can cause major subsurface damage. Maintaining a proper drainage system will minimize the shrink/swell potential of sub-soils.

5.17. Pre-Construction Survey
We recommend that the client’s representative prepare a pre-construction survey prior to site development. The pre-construction survey should document existing site conditions and performance of offsite structures (i.e. property line block walls and fences) prior to construction (where applicable). If adverse conditions are encountered during excavations, additional recommendations may be necessary.

6. SECTION 111 STATEMENT
It is the finding of this firm that the proposed structures will be safe and that they will not be affected by any hazard from landslide, liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, flood hazard, tsunamis, seiches, settlement or slippage and the completed work will not adversely affect adjacent property, in compliance with the Los Angeles County code, provided that our recommendations are followed.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

7. GENERAL INFORMATION
Accuracy of Provided Drawings
LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. (LKGE) investigation, analysis, findings and/or recommendations of a site, with respect to the proposed improvements, are often dependent on several factors or information provided to LKGE by the client and/or the client’s representative(s).

Provided information or Drawings may include topographic surveys, architectural drawings, engineering plans and/or grading plans. It is LKGE’s assumption that the provided Drawings, to be utilized as part of our investigation, accurately depict topographic conditions, existing and/or proposed structures and grades, property lines, easements, etc. It should be understood that LKGE’s use of the provided Drawings does not mean or confirm that the provided Drawings are accurate. If revisions are made to the site Drawings, these documents should be submitted to LKGE as soon as possible. Additional exploration, analysis and/or revised recommendations may be necessary depending upon our review of the revised Drawings, etc.

Environmentally Hazardous or Non-Hazardous Materials
It should be clearly understood that environmental geologic services are not within the scope of this study. Environmental geologic services may include the detection of hazardous or nonhazardous materials, wastes or substances existing on the site from research of available records, exploratory methods, sampling, laboratory analysis, etc. or the recommended treatment and/or disposal of these materials, wastes or substances. If hazardous or non-hazardous materials, wastes or substances are revealed by supplementary investigations or studies or are encountered during construction or grading operations, appropriate environmental investigation(s) and analysis may be required. In this case, mitigation and/or treatment of hazardous or nonhazardous materials, wastes or substances may be necessary. It should be understood that the property owner and potential future property owner(s) shall acknowledge and/or indemnify that LKGE has neither created or contributed to the creation or existence of any hazardous or nonhazardous materials, wastes or substances or otherwise dangerous conditions at the site. All site generated hazardous or non-hazardous materials, wastes or substances are the possession and responsibility of the property owner and potential future property owner(s).

Plan Review
This report is based on the development plans provided to our office. We recommend that the client’s representative(s) provide a complete set of the construction, building and/or grading plans to our office for review and/or approval, prior to initiation of construction. Any change in the scope of the project, from that addressed herein, may require additional geotechnical services by LKGE.

Formal plans should be reviewed and approved by LKGE, prior to initiation of construction. The appropriate government reviewing agency may require that the building and/or grading plans be signed by a licensed geotechnical engineer and/or a licensed engineering geologist, prior to initiation of construction. The plan review fees will be billed in accordance with our current fee schedule.

Government Reviewing Agency and Additional Geotechnical Services October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

This report is intended for submittal to the appropriate governmental authorities that control the issuance of necessary permits. The client or client’s representative should submit the geotechnical reports to the appropriate government reviewing agency, unless specific arrangements are made with this office. It should be noted that the government reviewing agency has various fees for reviewing geotechnical reports, the fees for which are not included within our scope of work. If applicable, the report submittal fees will be billed in accordance with our current fee schedule. All geotechnical and/or engineering geologic aspects of the proposed development are subject to review and approval by the government reviewing agency. It should be understood that the government reviewing agency may approve or deny any portion of the proposed development, which may require additional geotechnical services by this office. Additional geotechnical services may include review responses, supplemental letters, plan review and signature, construction observations, meetings, etc. The fees for generating additional reports, letters, exploration, analysis, etc. will be billed on a time and material basis, per our previously approved work acknowledgment or a pre-determined, agreed fee.

Site Observations during Construction
The appropriate government reviewing agency or building department requires that the geotechnical consultant of record provide site observations during grading and construction. The purpose of the site inspections is to verify site geotechnical and/or engineering geologic conditions and conformance with the intensions of the recommendations addressed herein. Although certain geotechnical and/or engineering geologic observations may not be required by the building department, the more site inspections typically reduce the risk for future problems. It is the client’s or the client’s representative(s) responsibility to contact the appropriate building department or building official regarding approval for all required inspections. Following is a general list of inspections required by this firm.
a) Pre-grade meetings
b) Foundation excavations for all structures (residence, retaining walls, pools, etc.) c) Temporary excavations/shoring
d) Bottom excavations for primary and/or secondary structural fills e) Keyway excavations
f) Compaction testing for primary and secondary structural fills g) Compaction testing for retaining wall backfill and utility trenches h) Subdrains for retaining walls, swimming pools or ponds It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by this firm prior to placing forms, steel reinforcement and/or concrete. Any fill which is placed at the site should be tested for compaction, especially if used for engineering purposes. All cut-slopes and temporary excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm. Should the observation reveal any unforeseen hazard, appropriate action will be recommended.

Representatives of LKGE will observe work in progress, perform tests on soil, and observe excavations and trenches. Excavation bottom observations should be requested before the placement of subdrains or compacted fill. The approved plans and permits should be on the job site and available for review by this office. The site inspections during construction will be billed on a time and material basis in accordance with our current fee schedule.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

It is advised that the client contact LKGE at least 1 week in advance of commencing constructing and/or grading to allow for contractual agreements for geotechnical services during the construction phases of your project. Please advise this office at least 48 hours prior to any required verification or approval.

Construction Site Maintenance
It is the responsibility of the contractor to maintain a safe construction site and for the safe operation of all equipment. When excavations exist on the site, the areas should be secured by placing appropriate coverings, fencing, warning signs, etc. All excavations should be properly covered and secured. Excavation stock piles or spoil piles should either be removed from the site or be property compacted, in accordance with recommendations presented herein. Fill temporarily stock-piled on the site should be placed in stable or approved areas and away from slopes, excavations or improvements. Earth materials generated from grading should not be disposed of along slopes or other unapproved locations. Workers should not be allowed to enter any un-shored excavations over 5-feet in depth, or depth specified herein. Water should not be allowed to saturate open footing trenches. Temporary erosion control measures and proper drainage control should be followed, especially during the rainy season.

It should be understood that the project contractor or others shall supervise and direct the work and they shall be solely responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures, and shall be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, including safety of all persons and property during the performance of the work.

Periodic or continuous observation by LKGE is not intended to include verification of dimensions or review of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures in, on, or near the construction site.

Final As-built Reports
During or upon completion of the project or grading, the appropriate government reviewing agency or building department often requires interim or final as-built geotechnical reports prepared by this firm to document that foundations and/or fill placement were conducted per the recommendations addressed herein and/or the approved building and/or grading plans. Interim or final geotechnical reports are often required for placement of primary or secondary structural fill, retaining wall backfill, slope repairs, pile observations, etc. The interim or final geotechnical reports will be billed on a time and material basis, in accordance with our current fee schedule.

8. LIMITATIONS
This report has been compiled for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) of the report, and their authorized representatives. It shall not be transferred to, or used by, a third party, to another project or applied to any other project on this site, other than as described herein, without the written consent and/or thorough review by this firm.

This report and the exploration are subject to the following conditions. Please read this section carefully, it limits our liability.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

This report is based on the development plans provided to our office. In the event that any significant changes (from those discussed herein) in the design and/or location of the proposed structure(s) are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by LKGE and the conclusions and recommendations are modified and/or approved by this firm after such review.

The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on the findings and observations made at the test pit, trench and/or boring locations. While no great variations in fill, soil and/or bedrock conditions are anticipated, if conditions are encountered during construction which appears to differ from those disclosed herein, this firm should be notified immediately, so as to consider the need for modifications or revised geotechnical recommendations. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations during construction requires our review during construction which pertains to the specific recommendations contained herein.

The subsurface conditions, excavations, characteristics and geologic structure described herein and shown on the enclosed cross-section(s) have been projected from individual test pits, trenches and/or borings placed on the subject property. The subsurface conditions and excavation characteristics, and geologic structure shown should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between or away from these exploratory excavations. The projection of geologic data is based on available information and experience and should not be considered exact.

It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur at the site due to variations in rainfall, temperature, irrigation, water line leaks, sewage disposal and/or other factors not evident at the time of measurements reported herein. LKGE assumes no responsibility for groundwater variations which may occur across the site. High groundwater levels can be extremely hazardous and saturation of earth materials can cause subsidence, settlement and/or slippage at the site.

The intent of this report is to advise our client and/or client’s representative(s) on soils and engineering geologic conditions at the site with respect to the proposed improvements.

Implementation of the advice presented in the Recommendations Section of this report is intended to reduce the risk associated with the proposed project and should not be construed to imply total performance of the project. It should be understood that geotechnical consulting and the contents of this report are not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical aspect of this project, should be reported to this firm as soon as possible.

Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty or is described as an inexact science or art. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are partly based on; 1) the evaluation of technical data gathered by this firm, 2) standard of practice, 3) experience, and, 4) professional judgment. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein should be considered advice. Other geotechnical consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted practice.

No warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of the agreement and included in this report.

It should be understood that LKGE’s services are limited to the disciplines of soils engineering and/or engineering geology. While LKGE may refer various professionals or outside services, October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

working in associated disciplines, to their client’s or client’s representatives, LKGE is not responsible for the performance of work by third parties, which may include, but are not limited to, surveyors, civil or structural engineers, architects, contractors, etc. It should be clearly understood that LKGE is not a licensed surveyor, architect, civil or structural engineer or contractor. LKGE’s periodic or continuous inspection(s) of geotechnical work on an LKGE project shall not relieve third party professionals of their responsibility to perform their work in accordance with the applicable and/or approved geotechnical reports, plans, specifications, safety requirements, etc. It should be understood that LKGE’s periodic or continuous inspection(s) of geotechnical work on an LKGE project does not imply that LKGE is observing, verifying and/or approving all site work. LKGE will only make site inspections, per our approved work authorization agreement(s) and/or related to the appropriate geotechnical field services provided by LKGE and will not relieve others of their professional responsibilities.

Should the project be delayed beyond the period of one year after the date of this report, the site should be observed and the report reviewed to consider possible changed conditions.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to assure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the designers and builders for the project.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707

9. REFERENCES
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte

7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, SHZ Report 024, 45 pp.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, 108 pp.

California Geological Survey, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones, El Monte Quadrangle, California, Scale 1"=2,000', Released March 25.

Dibblee, T.W. and Ehrenspeck, H.E., 1999, Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangle, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-69, Scale 1”=2,000’.

State of California, California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007, 48 p.

Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures For Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, 70 pages.

Southern California Earthquake Center, 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, 132 pages.

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
PLATES
Poplar Avenue
LEGEND:

Plan Prepared For: Site Address: Legal Description:

Date Of Survey: Area: Bench Mark: Danielson Surveying Mark R. Danielson, PLS 7882 Job No. 0000-0000

TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY
Scale: 1" = 40'

PRELIMINARY

GARAGE SINGLE FAMILY

SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY

SINGLE FAMILY

SINGLE FAMILY

APARTMENT BUILDING

APARTMENT BUILDING

APARTMENT BUILDING

APARTMENT BUILDING
2 STORY
2 STORY

EXISTING EXISTING

EXISTING

EXISTING

EXISTING

EXISTING EXISTING

EXISTING

EXISTING

EXISTING
61 116, 128, 136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Regional Geologic Map
August 2020 Project 20-0707 Plate 2
Reference: Dibblee, 1999, Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangle.

SCALE
SITE
116, 128, 136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Seismic Hazard Zones Map
August 2020 Project 20-0707 Plate 3
CGS, 2017, Earthquake Fault Zones of the El Monte Quadrangle.

Reference: CGS, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones of the El Monte Quadrangle.

SITE
116, 128, 136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Historically Highest Groundwater Map
August 2020 Project 20-0707 Plate 3
Reference: CGS ,1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte 7.5-Minute Quadrangle.

SITE

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
Appendix A
Field Exploration
We performed a field exploration consisting of logging of five (5) exploratory soil borings on July 23, 2020. The exploration was performed using an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger drill rig and hand tools. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 61 feet below existing grade. The approximate locations of our geotechnical exploration borings are shown on Plate 1.

The Boring Log is presented on Plates A-1 through A-5. The Boring Logs describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and show the field and laboratory tests performed.

The borings were logged by an engineer or geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. Drive and bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings and delivered to the geotechnical laboratory for testing.

A California modified sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil encountered. This sampler consists of a 3-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 2.4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) split barrel shaft that was driven a total of 6-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in brass rings for laboratory testing. Additional soil from each drive remaining in the cutting shoe was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil.

In addition, a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler was used to obtain drive samples of soil encountered. SPT sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced into the soil at the bottom of the drilled hole a total of 18 inches. Soil samples obtained by the SPT were retained in plastic bags.

Upon completion of the geologic and geotechnical logging, the borings were backfilled with soil from the cuttings.

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
15 19
25 45
13 14
5 6
7 10
14 Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt at surface.

A-1a
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :
25 SC No recovery
20 CL/SC Sandy CLAY to Clayey SAND; orange brown; medium stiff; dry 15 6.4 98.9 CL Older Alluvium (Qae)
Sandy CLAY; orange brown; stiff; dry
10 10.6 122.8 SC Clayey SAND; red to dark brown; stiff; damp; few glass/asphalt debris 5 10.2 115.5 CL Sandy CLAY; red to dark brown; stiff; damp DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: 2" AC over 18"AB /concrete debris
0 Artificial Fill (Af)
CL/SM Sandy CLAY to Silty SAND; red brown; loose to medium dense; damp CR GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered Automatic Trip / Eri = 81% SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
199+/- 8 inches Charlies Soil Sampling
Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hollow Stem Auguer 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-1

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
6 9
12 8
10 14
18 23
28 11
15 18
50/5"
18 50/6"
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt at surface.

A-1b
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :
55 SM/GM Silty SAND with GRAVEL; light brown; dense; dry 50 SM/GM Silty SAND with GRAVEL; light brown; dense; dry 45 ML Sandy SILT; light brown; stiff; dry; few CLAY FC
(59.1%)
(67.4%)
40 ML Sandy SILT; light brown; very stiff; dry; few CLAY 35 ML Sandy SILT; light brown; stiff; dry; few CLAY FC
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Continued…
30 SM Silty SAND; light brown; medium dense; dry FC
(14.3%)
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered Automatic Trip / Eri = 81% SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
199+/- 8 inches Charlies Soil Sampling
Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hollow Stem Auguer 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-1

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
25 50/5"
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt at surface.

A-1c
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :
80 75
70 65
SM/GM Silty SAND with GRAVEL; light brown; dense; dry
Total Depth = 61 feet
60 DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Continued…
55 GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered Automatic Trip / Eri = 81% SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
200+/- 8 inches Charlies Soil Sampling
Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hollow Stem Auguer 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-1

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
5 6
7 8
1 1
2 4
7 4
4 6
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.

Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hollow Stem Auguer 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-2
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered Automatic Trip / Eri = 81% SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
200+/- 8 inches Charlies Soil Sampling
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: 5" AC / no base
0 Artificial Fill (Af)
SM Silty SAND; red brown; loose to medium dense; damp
5 12.7 115.1 SM Silty SAND; red brown; loose to medium dense; damp C 10 11.5 104.8 SM Silty SAND; red brown; loose to medium dense; damp; few CLAY 15 SC/CL Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY; red brown; loose; moist Older Alluvium (Qae)
Sandy CLAY; brown; medium stiff; damp
20 9.7 108.8 CL/SC Sandy CLAY to Clayey SAND; brown to orange brown; medium stiff; damp C 25 CL Sandy CLAY; orange brown; medium stiff; damp
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt at surface.

A-2a
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
16 25
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.

Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hollow Stem Auguer 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-2
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered Automatic Trip / Eri = 81% SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
200+/- 8 inches Charlies Soil Sampling
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Continued…
25 30

14.3 96.1 SM Silty SAND; brown; dense; damp; fine SAND DS Total Depth = 31 feet
35 40
45 50
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt at surface.

A-2b
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.

Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hand Tools 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-3
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered N/A SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
213+/- 5 inches JG
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: grass lawn 0
Older Alluvium (Qae)
Sandy CLAY; brown to orange brown; stiff; dry

8.9 105.1 Sandy CLAY; brown to orange brown; stiff; dry 5 8.9 108.8 Sandy CLAY; brown to orange brown; stiff; dry DS 10 Total Depth = 10 feet
15 20
25 * Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings
A-3
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.

Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hand Tools 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-4
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered N/A SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
204+/- 5 inches JG
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: 3" concrete pavement 0
Artificial Fill (Af)
Sandy CLAY; brown; stiff; dry
Older Alluvium (Qae)
5 10.7 123.2 CL/SC Sandy CLAY to Clayey SAND; orange brown; stiff; dry 10 7.7 124.8 CL/SM Sandy CLAY to Silty SAND; brown; stiff; dry C 15 Total Depth = 15 feet
20 25
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings
A-4
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.

Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hand Tools 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
116 - 136 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0707 B-5
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered N/A SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
210+/- 5 inches JG
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: grass lawn 0
Older Alluvium (Qae)
Sandy CLAY; orange brown; stiff; dry; upper 1 ft disturbed 5 7.8 107.9 Sandy CLAY; brown to orange brown; stiff; dry 10 Total Depth = 10 feet
15 20
25 * Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings
A-5
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
Representative soil samples collected from our field exploration were delivered to the EGL, Inc. of Arcadia, California for testing, and to evaluate relevant engineering properties. Based on our review of the laboratory data, LKGE concurs with and accept the laboratory testing results performed by EGL, Inc.

Laboratory Moisture Content and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry densities of selected driven samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D 2937. The results are shown on the attached EGL report.

Sieve Analysis – Passing #200 Sieve
Soil fine content analysis utilizing #200 sieves was performed on representative soil sample(s) per the ASTM C136/C117 Method. The test results are presented in the attached EGL report.

Direct Shear Test
Direct shear testing was conducted on representative soil samples to determine their shear strength in accordance with the ASTM D3080. The sample was saturated under normal load before testing. For each test, three samples were placed, one at a time, into the test apparatus and subjected to a range of normal loads appropriate for the anticipated conditions. The samples were then sheared at a constant shear rate of 0.01-inches per minute. Shear deformation was recorded until a maximum of about 0.3 inches of horizontal displacement was achieved. Ultimate shear strengths for each sample were selected from the shear stressdisplacement data. Based on the test data, the stress generally becomes constant beyond 0.2 inch of displacement and it is our opinion that the samples were sheared to its ultimate strength status. The shear strength parameters are presented in the following table and on the attached EGL report.

Sample
Location
Depth
(ft.)
Soil
Type Soil Description
Ultimate Strength Parameters
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
B-2 30 Qae Silty SAND 156 30
B-3 6 Qae Sandy CLAY 195 28
Consolidation Test
Consolidation testing was performed on representative soil samples under consolidated drained conditions per the ASTM D2435 Method. Axial loads were carried to a maximum of 8,000 psf. To hasten consolidation, investigate the collapsibility potential and similar possible adverse field conditions, water was added to an axial load of 2,000 psf. Compressibility of the soils within the zone of significant stress was investigated and the results are provided on the attached EGL report. The collapse/swell potential is tabulated below:

October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
Sample
Location Depth
(ft.)
Soil
Type Soil Description
Percent of
Collapse (-)/
Swell (+)
Collapse
Index
B-2 5 Af Lean CLAY -0.2 Slightly
B-2 20 Qae Lean CLAY/Clayey SAND -0.2 Slightly
B-4 10 Qae Lean CLAY/Clayey SAND -0.1 None
Corrosivity Tests
Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on a representative soil sample in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 643. The chloride content of the selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 422. The sulfate content of the selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 417. The test results are presented in the attached EGL report.

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NAME: 116 Poplar Avenue, Montebello EGLAB JOB NO.: 20-122-035 PROJECT NO.: 20-0707 CLIENT: LK Geotechnical
DATE: 8/4/2020 SUMMARIZED BY: JT
MOISTURE DRY %PASSING
CONTENT DENSITY #200

BORING SAMPLE DEPTH ASTM ASTM ASTM
NO. NO. (ft) D2216 D2937 D1140
(%) (PCF) (%)
B-1 N/A 5.0 10.2 115.5
B-1 N/A 10.0 10.6 122.8
B-1 N/A 15.0 6.4 98.9
B-1 N/A 30.0 14.3
B-1 N/A 35.0 67.4
B-1 N/A 45.0 59.1
B-2 N/A 5.0 12.7 115.1
B-2 N/A 10.0 11.5 104.8
B-2 N/A 20.0 9.7 108.8
B-2 N/A 30.0 14.3 96.1
B-3 N/A 3.0 8.9 105.1
B-3 N/A 6.0 8.9 108.8
B-3 N/A 10.0 11.3 100.5
B-4 N/A 5.0 10.7 123.2
B-4 N/A 10.0 7.7 124.8
B-5 N/A 5.0 7.8 107.9
gd S
(pcf) (%)
1000 94.3 93
2000 94.8 93
4000 96.6 92
08/20 (ASTM D3080) Figure

14.3 27.1 EGLAB Project No.: , California 20-122-035

14.3 26.8

14.3 25.4 DIRECT SHEAR
Normal
Stress (psf)
Initial
Moisture (%)
Final
Moisture (%)
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0707
156 30
Project Name:

EGLAB, INC.
116 Poplar Avenue, Montebello
Cohesion
(PSF)
Friction
Angle
B-2 N/A 30.0 Ring SM 436 31
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Sample
Type
Soil
Type
Symbol
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

SHEAR STRESS (PSF)

NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
Peak Ultimate
gd S
(pcf) (%)
1000 116.1 100
2000 116.8 100
4000 118.9 100
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Sample
Type
Soil
Type
Symbol Cohesion
(PSF)
Friction
Angle
B-1 N/A 5.0 Ring CL 336 28
178 28
Project Name:

EGLAB, INC.
129 Poplar Avenue, Montebello

10.4 17.5 DIRECT SHEAR
Normal
Stress (psf)
Initial
Moisture (%)
Final
Moisture (%)
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0708
08/20 (ASTM D3080) Figure

10.4 19.1 EGLAB Project No.: , California 20-122-036

10.4 18.3
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

SHEAR STRESS (PSF)

NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
Peak Ultimate
B-3 6.0 195 116 20-0707 8.9 20-122-035 8.9 8.9 20.2 330 106.1 93 17.8 18.7 109.0 92 112.1 96 Project Name:
116 Poplar Avenue, Montebello
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0707
EGLAB Project No.: 20-122-035
08/20 Figure
Symbol Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(Ft.)
Soil
Type
Init. Moisture
Content (%)
B-2 N/A 5.0 CL 12.7
EGLAB, INC.

CONSOLIDATION
(ASTM D2435)
Init. Dry
Density (PCF)
Init. Void
Ratio
115.7 0.456
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 0.1 1 10 100
DEFORMATION (%)

COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF)

SATURATED
Project Name:
116 Poplar Avenue, Montebello
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0707
EGLAB Project No.: 20-122-035
08/20 Figure
EGLAB, INC.

CONSOLIDATION
(ASTM D2435)
Init. Dry
Density (PCF)
Init. Void
Ratio
B-2 N/A 20.0 CL/SC 9.7 110.1 0.530
Symbol Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(Ft.)
Soil
Type
Init. Moisture
Content (%)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 0.1 1 10 100
DEFORMATION (%)

COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF)

SATURATED
Project Name:
116 Poplar Avenue, Montebello
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0707
EGLAB Project No.: 20-122-035
08/20 Figure
EGLAB, INC.

CONSOLIDATION
(ASTM D2435)
Init. Dry
Density (PCF)
Init. Void
Ratio
B-4 N/A 10.0 SC 7.7 125.3 0.344
Symbol Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(Ft.)
Soil
Type
Init. Moisture
Content (%)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 0.1 1 10 100
DEFORMATION (%)

COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF)

SATURATED

SUMMARY OF CORROSION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NAME: 116 Poplar Avenue, Montebello EGLAB JOB NO.: 20-122-035 PROJECT NO.: 20-0707 CLIENT: LK Geotechnical
DATE: Summarized By: JT
Chloride Sulfate Minimum
pH Content Content Resistivity
BORING DEPTH CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans
NO. 643 422 417 643
(ft) (ppm) (% by weight) (ohm-cm)
B-1 0-10.0 8.09 370 0.030 990
8/4/2020
SAMPLE
NO.

N/A
October 2, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0707
Appendix C
Engineering Calculations and Design Details
List of Plates
Plate No. Plate Name
SW-1 Earth Pressures for Shoring
RW-1 Earth Pressures for Retaining Wall
RWD-1 Typical Retaining Wall Backfill & Subdrain Detail Earth Pressure Analyses: General Limit Equilibrium (GLE) - Trial Wedge Method Shoring Wall Parameters
Height of wall, H = 27.0 feet
Angle of back slope,  = 0.0 degrees
Soil Parameters
Unit weight,  = 120.0 pcf
Condition
Shear
Strength
Used
Cohesion
C (psf)
Friction angle
 (deg)
Factor of
Safety, F.S.

Design
Cohesion
Cd (psf)
Design Friction
angle
d (deg)
Static Ultimate 195.0 28.0 1.20 162.5 23.9
Failure plane
angle (deg)
Assumed
tension crack
(ft)
Failure plane
length (ft)
Weight of soil
wedge (lb/ft)
Active
Force ,PA
(lb/ft)
Active
EFWA
(pcf)
42 0.0 40.4 48578.2 9572.9 26.3
44 0.0 38.9 45294.1 10428.2 28.6
46 0.0 37.5 42239.2 11134.8 30.5
48 0.0 36.3 39383.7 11705.7 32.1
50 0.0 35.2 36702.2 12150.9 33.3
52 0.0 34.3 34173.4 12477.8 34.2
54 0.0 33.4 31779.0 12692.0 34.8
56 0.0 32.6 29503.0 12796.9 35.1
58 0.0 31.8 27331.8 12794.2 35.1
60 0.0 31.2 25253.3 12683.8 34.8
62 0.0 30.6 23257.0 12463.9 34.2
64 0.0 30.0 21333.4 12131.0 33.3
66 0.0 29.6 19474.3 11679.6 32.0
68 0.0 29.1 17672.1 11102.0 30.5
70 0.0 28.7 15920.1 10388.1 28.5
72 0.0 28.4 14212.0 9524.9 26.1
36 23
DATE: Oct. 2020 PROJECT# 20-0707 PLATE
Cantilevered Shoring Tie-back/Braced Shoring

EARTH PRESSURES FOR SHORING
116-136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
SW-1
H

0.3 q x H (psf)
q
H

0.3 q x H (psf)
q

0.2H

0.6H

0.2H
Earth Pressure Analyses: General Limit Equilibrium (GLE) - Trial Wedge Method Retaining Wall Parameters Ground Motion Parameters
Height of wall, H = 22.0 feet PGAM = 0.89 g
Angle of back slope,  = 0.0 degrees kh = PGAM/3 = 0.30 Soil Parameters
Unit weight,  = 120.0
Condition
Shear
Strength
Used
Cohesion
C (psf)
Friction angle
 (deg)
Factor of
Safety, F.S.

Design
Cohesion
Cd (psf)
Design Friction
angle
d (deg)
Static Ultimate 195.0 28.0 1.50 130.0 19.5
Seismic Ultimate 195.0 28.0 1.00 195.0 28.0
Failure plane
angle (deg)
Assumed
tension crack
(ft)
Failure plane
length (ft)
Weight of soil
wedge (lb/ft)
Active
Force ,PA
(lb/ft)
Active
EFWA
(pcf)
Failure plane
angle (deg)
Total Seismic
Force, PE
(lb/ft)
Total Seismic
EFWE
(pcf)
40 0.0 34.2 34608.5 8450.5 34.9 40 11633.6 48.1
42 0.0 32.9 32252.2 8987.5 37.1 42 11807.6 48.8
44 0.0 31.7 30071.8 9429.2 39.0 44 11901.8 49.2
46 0.0 30.6 28043.6 9784.3 40.4 46 11922.9 49.3
48 0.0 29.6 26147.7 10059.6 41.6 48 11876.1 49.1
50 0.0 28.7 24367.5 10259.9 42.4 50 11765.5 48.6
52 0.0 27.9 22688.5 10388.9 42.9 52 11593.5 47.9
54 0.0 27.2 21098.8 10448.8 43.2 54 11361.7 46.9
56 0.0 26.5 19587.7 10440.6 43.1 56 11070.9 45.7
58 0.0 25.9 18146.2 10364.2 42.8 58 10720.7 44.3
60 0.0 25.4 16766.3 10218.3 42.2 60 10309.9 42.6
62 0.0 24.9 15440.8 10000.2 41.3 62 9836.5 40.6
64 0.0 24.5 14163.8 9706.3 40.1 64 9297.4 38.4
66 0.0 24.1 12929.4 9330.9 38.6 66 8688.5 35.9
68 0.0 23.7 11732.9 8867.1 36.6 68 8004.6 33.1
70 0.0 23.4 10569.7 8305.7 34.3 70 7239.1 29.9
For seismic design, use Total Seismic Pressure EFW = 56.0 Static, EFWA 43 pcf Static, EFW0 60 pcf
Increm. Seismic, EFWAE 13 pcf Increm. Seismic, EFW0E 0 pcf Total Seismic, EFWA+EFWAE 56 pcf Total Seismic, EFW0+EFW0E 60 pcf 43 13 60 0
DATE: Oct. 2020 PROJECT# 20-0707 PLATE
Active Condition At-Rest Condition

STATIC INCREMENTAL SEISMIC STATIC INCREMENTAL SEISMIC

EARTH PRESSURE ANALYSES
116-136 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
RW-1
x H (psf) x H (psf)
H

0.33 q x H (psf)
q
H

0.50 q x H (psf)
q

APPENDIX C.2
LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc.,
Geotechnical Investigation Report,
Proposed 3-Story Apartment Building
APN's 6346-020-012 & -013,
129 & 133 N. Poplar Avenue,
Montebello, California
August 20, 2020.
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc.
10120 National Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90034
Engineer: 626.328.4346; Geologist: 310.866.8977

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING
APN 6346-020-012 & -013
129 & 133 N. POPLAR AVENUE

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
FOR
Magna & Magna, Inc.
1520 Washington Boulevard, #100
Montebello, CA 90640
Attn: Mr. Mark D. Magna, President
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
Magna & Magna, Inc.
1520 Washington Boulevard, #100
Montebello, CA 90640
Attn: Mr. Mark D. Magna, President
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Proposed 3-Story Apartment Building
APN 6346-020-012 & -013
129 & 133 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Dear Mr. Magna,
Pursuant to your request, LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation and prepared this report for the proposed improvements at the subject site. The primary objective of this investigation was to provide our best estimate of the geotechnical factors that pertain to the gross stability of the proposed improvements and to evaluate alternatives for a foundation system for the proposed structures.

The report includes a description and an evaluation of the soil materials and provides soils engineering recommendations for construction of the proposed improvements. This report is intended for submittal to the appropriate governmental authorities that control the issuance of necessary permits.

Based on our findings, the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and are implemented during construction of the project.

If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please feel free to call this office.

Sincerely,
LK GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, INC.

Sean Lin, G.E. 2921
Principal Engineer
SL:mk
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................ 1

1.1. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2. FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3. FIELD PERCOLATION TESTING .............................................................................................. 1

1.4. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................. 1

1.5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND REPORT PREPARATION .................................................... 1

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ........................... 1

2.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 1

2.2. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 2

3. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................. 2

3.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 2

3.2. SUBSURFACE EARTH MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 2

3.2.1. Older Alluvium (Qae) ...................................................................................................... 2

3.3. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................ 2

4. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION ................................. 3

4.1. SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES EVALUATION ............................................................................... 3

4.1.1. Earthquake Fault Zone .................................................................................................. 3

4.1.2. Soil Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................ 4

4.2. CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................. 4

5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 5

5.1. GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 5

5.2. EXPANSIVE SOIL EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 6

5.3. COLLAPSIBLE SOIL EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 6

5.4. CORROSIVE SOIL EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 6

5.5. STORMWATER INFILTRATION EVALUATION ........................................................................ 7

5.6. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK ................................................................................ 8

5.6.1. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation .......................................................... 8

5.6.2. Compaction ....................................................................................................................... 9

5.6.3. Shrinkage/Bulking Due to Compaction ..................................................................... 9

5.6.4. Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................... 9

5.7. TEMPORARY EXCAVATION ..................................................................................................... 9

5.8. CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS .................................................................................................. 10

5.9. CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS FOR ANCILLARY STRUCTURES .......................................... 11

5.10. SLAB-ON-GRADE ................................................................................................................... 11

5.11. MOISTURE RETARDER ........................................................................................................... 11

5.12. HARDSCAPE ............................................................................................................................ 12

5.13. PAVEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 12

5.14. DRAINAGE PROTECTION ....................................................................................................... 13

5.15. PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY ............................................................................................. 13

6. SECTION 111 STATEMENT ....................................................................... 13

7. GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 14 August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
iii

8. LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 16

9. REFERENCES............................................................................................. 19 List of Plates
Plate 1 – Site Plan and Geotechnical Exploration Map
Plate 2 – Regional Geologic Map
Plate 3 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Plate 4 – Historically Highest Groundwater Map
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Field Exploration
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

1. SCOPE OF WORK
To prepare this report, we have performed the tasks described in the following subsections:

1.1. Literature Review
We reviewed geological literature including geologic maps, topographic maps and aerial photographs relevant to the subject site in preparation of this report. A list of literature reviewed is presented in the “References” section of this report.

1.2. Field Exploration
We performed field exploration consisting of logging of three (3) exploratory soil borings on July 23, 2020. The exploration was performed using hollow-stem auger drill rig and hand labor. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 21 feet below the existing grade. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered during drilling are presented in Appendix A – Field Exploration.

1.3. Field Percolation Testing
We performed a percolation testing by using one of the exploratory borings to determine the infiltration rate of on-site soil. Detailed testing data is presented in Appendix A – Field Exploration.

1.4. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Representative soil samples collected from our field exploration were delivered to the EGL, Inc. (EGL) of Arcadia, California for testing, and to evaluate relevant engineering properties.

The detailed laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B – Laboratory Testing.

Based on our review of the laboratory data, LKGE concurs with and accept the laboratory testing results performed by EGL, Inc.

1.5. Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation
We compiled all geological and geotechnical data obtained from literature review, field exploration and laboratory test results, and then prepared this report to present our findings and the geotechnical recommendations, including seismic considerations, grading, foundations, foundation setback, retaining walls, floor slabs, temporary excavations, and drainage.

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of removing the existing structures and then constructing a 16-unit, 3-Story apartment building. The new structure comprises of August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

2-level of residential dwelling unit over at-grade parking. No subterranean basement is proposed. The proposed structure is shown on Plate 1 – Site Plan and Geotechnical Exploration Map.

2.2. Site Description
The project site is located at 129 & 133 N. Poplar Avenue in the City of Montebello, California. The site is bounded by N. Poplar Avenue to the east, 2-story apartment to the south, 1-story single-family house to the north, and an alley to the west.

The site is currently occupied by two, 1-story single-family houses and a detached garages, landscape, and mature trees.

The site is essentially level. The regional topographic gradient is approximately 0.5 percent toward the south. Drainage across the site is by uncontrolled sheet flow to the adjacent sidewalks, alley and drainage course, as well as by infiltration within unpaved areas.

3. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1. Regional Geology
According to the Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangle (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 1999), the project the site is underlain by Older Alluvium (geologic map symbol Qae). This material composes primarily sandy silt to silty sand. A portion of the geologic map is reproduced as Plate 2 – Regional Geologic Map.

3.2. Subsurface Earth Materials
Based on our field exploration, the earth materials observed at the site consist of older alluvium.

3.2.1. Older Alluvium (Qae)
Older alluvium consisting of brown to orange brown sandy clay to clayey sand/ silty sand was encountered in our exploratory borings at the site. Older alluvium was observed to be medium stiff to very stiff and dry to moist. The upper 18 inches of the older alluvium is considered disturbed and not suitable for foundation support. The undisturbed older alluvium is considered suitable for foundation or slab support for the proposed structures and/or for support of new compacted fill, provided that our recommendations are followed and integrated into the improvement plans.

3.3. Groundwater
No groundwater was observed on the site or in our exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet below existing grade. According to the State of California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the El Monte Quadrangle, the site is located within an area with historically highest groundwater level reportedly at approximately between 20- and 50-feet below ground surface (Plate 4). It appears the 20-feet historical groundwater contour line is below the August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

ground elevation along Rio Hondo channel which is approximately 30 feet below the Poplar Avenue. Therefore, the groundwater level appears to be well below the level of the proposed structures. It should be noted that local fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall, irrigation and water line leaks.

4. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION

4.1. Seismic Hazard Zones Evaluation
The southern California region is seismically active and commonly experiences strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes along active faults. Ground shaking resulting from a moderate to major earthquake (Magnitude 6.0 or greater) can be expected during the lifespan of the existing and/or proposed structures. Property owners and the general public should be aware that any structure or slope in the southern California region could be subject to significant damage as a result of a moderate or major earthquake. The hazards associated with seismic activity in the vicinity of the site are discussed and evaluated in the following sections.

4.1.1. Earthquake Fault Zone
The State of California established the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972 which went into effect in 1973. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the construction of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. An "active fault" is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one which had surface displacement within the Holocene era (+/- 11,000 years) and is well defined at the surface. The term “sufficiently active” has been used if there is evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches.

The Act was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act in 1975 and then Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1994. The original designation “Special Studies Zones” has been renamed “Earthquake Fault Zones”. Under the Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) along active faults in California. Development within these zones must include geologic investigations demonstrating that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) is required to delineate active faults, compile maps of EFZs and submit such Official Maps to the public and continually review and revise EFZs based on new geologic and seismic data. EFZ boundaries on early maps were positioned about 660 feet (200 meters) away from the fault traces to accommodate imprecise locations of the faults and possible existence of active branches. The policy since 1997 is to position the EFZ boundaries about 500 feet (150 meters) away from major active faults and about 200 to 300 feet (60 to 90 meters) away from well defined, minor faults.

Based on our review of California Geological Survey 2018 seismic hazard zones map (Plate 3), the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest known fault is the Elsinore Fault which is mapped about 2.5 miles east of the site.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

4.1.2. Soil Liquefaction Potential
Soil liquefaction occurs when the pore pressures generated within a soil mass approach the effective overburden pressure. Liquefaction of soils may be caused by cyclic loading such as that imposed by ground shaking during earthquakes. The increase in pore pressure results in a loss of strength, and the soil then can undergo both horizontal and vertical movements, depending on the site conditions. Other phenomena associated with soil liquefaction include sand boils, ground oscillation, and loss of foundation bearing capacity. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in loose, saturated, relatively clean, fine-grained cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Factors to consider in the evaluation of soil liquefaction potential include groundwater conditions, soil type, grain size distribution, relative density, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground motion.

Based on our review of California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Plate 3), the site is not located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone. The soil liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. Consequently seismically-induced settlement is negligible.

4.2. CBC Seismic Design Parameters
The future structures should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with the applicable seismic building code. Based on our geotechnical investigation, the subject site is classified as Site Class D in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code that refers to the ASCE 7-16.

Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, structures shall be designed for the seismic response coefficient Cs determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5 Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5 Ts or Eq.

37.5 (12.8-4) for T > TL, where
T = the fundamental period of the building
Ts = SD1/SDS
TL = long-period transition period
The design spectral response acceleration parameters presented on the following table generated by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) website, may be utilized for seismic design:

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

Site location (latitude, longitude): (34.0095, -118.0996) Spectral Period, T
(second)
MCER ground
motion (g)
Site-modified
Spectral acceleration (g)
Seismic design
acceleration (g)

0.2 Ss = 1.882 Fa = 1.0 SMS = 1.882 SDS = 1.254

1.0 S1 = 0.674 Fv = 1.7 SM1 = 1.146 SD1 = 0.764
Site modified peak ground acceleration PGAM = 0.893 g
Long-period transition period TL = 8 second
Seismic Design Category = D
If seismic response coefficient Cs recommended above is not applicable for structural design, our office can perform a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis upon the project structural engineer’s request.

Present building codes and construction practices, and the recommendations presented in this report, are intended to minimize structural damage to buildings and prevent loss of life as a result of a moderate or a major earthquake. They are not intended to totally prevent damage to structures, graded slopes and natural hillsides due to moderate or major earthquakes. While it may be possible to design structures and graded slopes to withstand strong ground motion, the construction costs associated with such designs are usually prohibitive, and the design restrictions may be severely limiting. Earthquake insurance is often the only economically feasible form of protection for your property against major earthquake damage. Damage to sidewalks, steps, decks, patios and similar exterior improvements can be expected as these are not normally controlled by the building code.

5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Geotechnical Overview
Based on the findings of our investigation, the site is considered to be suitable from a soils engineering standpoint for construction of the proposed structures, provided the recommendations included herein are followed and integrated into the building and/or grading plans.

The following is a list of geotechnical considerations for this project:
 Surficial disturbed/loose soils were encountered at various locations within the property. We recommend that the proposed buildings be supported on a uniform compacted fill blanket per our recommendations presented in “Site Preparation and Earthwork” section.
 The near surface soil has “Low” expansive potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the mitigation for expansive soil.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

 The near surface soil has “slightly” collapsible potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the mitigation for collapsible soil.
 On-site near surface soil is not considered as “corrosive soil” based on the laboratory testing results.

Our geotechnical engineering analyses performed for this report were based on the preliminary information provided to us. If the design substantially changes, then our geotechnical engineering recommendations would be subject to revision based on our evaluation of the changes.

5.2. Expansive Soil Evaluation
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported on-grade, or pavements supported over these materials.

Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed construction.

Based on our review of laboratory testing results, the near surface soil has “Low” expansive potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the mitigation for expansive soil.

5.3. Collapsible Soil Evaluation
Based on our review of the laboratory testing results, the on-site near surface soil has “slightly” collapsible potential. Our recommendations have been incorporated the mitigation for collapsible soil.

5.4. Corrosive Soil Evaluation
The potential for the near-surface on-site materials to corrode buried steel and concrete improvements was evaluated preliminarily. In accordance with the Caltrans Corrosive Guidelines, corrosive soil is defined as the soil has a pH less than 5.5, or chloride concentration greater than 500 ppm, or sulfate concentration in soils greater than 2,000 ppm, or minimum resistivity less than 1,000 ohm-centimeters. Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents.

These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Based on our review of laboratory test results, the followings are our findings:
 The potential for chloride attack of reinforcing steel in concrete structures and pipes in contact with on-site soil is negligible.
 The potential for sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soil is negligible in accordance with ACI 318, Table 4.3.1. As a minimum, we recommend that Type I or II cement and a water-cement ratio of no greater than 0.5 be used on the project.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

 Based on soil resistivity results, the on-site soil is not considerred corrosive to buried ferrous metals. In general, conventional corrosion protection measures for metal in contact with soil may include the following:
o Underground steel utilities should be given a high-quality protective coating such as 40 mil extruded polyethylene, 20 mil plastic tape over primer per AWWA Standard C209, or hot applied coal tar enamel or tape per AWWA Standard C203.
o All underground steel should be electrically insulated from above ground steel, dissimilar metals, and cement-mortar or concrete coated steel. o Underground steel pipe should be bonded for electrical continuity if rubbergasketed, mechanical, grooved-end, or other non-conductive type joints are used. In addition, cathode protection is recommended for underground steel utilities.

If special corrosion protection is required for certain performance criteria determined by the project designer, a corrosion specialist should be consulted regarding suitable types of piping and appropriate protection for underground metal conduits.

5.5. Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation
Percolation testing was performed using the falling head boring test method in accordance with the Los Angeles County “Guidelines. The water level was measured to the nearest tenth of a foot and converted to inches in the calculation. The infiltration rate is shown in the table below and the raw data is attached in Appendix A.

Soil Infiltration Rate
Boring
No.

Total Depth
of Boring (ft)
Depth of
Testing Zone (ft)
Soil Description
of Testing Zone
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
B-1 20 15 – 20 Sandy Silt 0.72
The project Civil Engineer should review the raw data of percolation test to determine infiltration rate for design of the proposed infiltration system. The proposed infiltration system should comply with the following setbacks in accordance with Los Angeles County guideline.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

Stormwater Infiltration Facility Setback Requirements
Setback from Distance
Property lines and public right of way 5 feet
Any foundation 15 feet or within 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation, whichever is greater
Face of any slope H/2 or 5 feet minimum (H is height of slope) Water well used for drinking water 100 feet

5.6. Site Preparation and Earthwork
Prior to construction/grading, the area of the proposed development should be clear of any loose surficial soils, vegetation and/or man-made debris. Demolition debris and other unsuitable materials should be stripped and removed from the site. Water lines or other old utility lines or installations to be abandoned should be removed or crushed in place. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be backfilled with compacted soils.

5.6.1. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation
For building foundation support, we recommend over-excavate at least 3 foot below the proposed footing bottom, or 5 feet below the existing grade, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper. The lateral extent of the over-excavation should be at least 5 feet beyond the building line (where space permits) or equidistant to the thickness of fill below footing, whichever is greater.

For any ancillary structures (i.e. fence walls, canopies, trash enclosure, etc.), we recommend over-excavate at least 1 foot below the proposed footing bottom, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper. The lateral extent of the overexcavation should be equidistant to the thickness of fill below footing (where space permits).

For hardscape (patios, steps, walkways, etc.), we recommend scarify 12 inches below the subgrade, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper, and then recompact to 90% relative compaction.

For pavement, we recommend scarify at least 12 inches below the subgrade, or to the depth of undocumented fill, whichever is deeper, and then recompact to 95% relative compaction.

Any excavated bottoms for footings or to receive new compacted fill should be inspected and approved by a representative from LKGE. prior to compaction work. Deeper excavations may be required in areas where soft, saturated, or unsuitable materials, for example, tree root balls or undocumented fill are encountered.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

5.6.2. Compaction
On-site materials are considered to be suitable for compaction, provided that all deleterious materials are removed from the site prior to compaction.

All new compacted fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the current ASTM D1557 and at about 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple wheel pneumatic tired rollers, or other appropriate compacting rollers.

It may be necessary to import soils to the site to be used as compacted fill. Imported materials should be a sandy type of material and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to transporting to the job site. The sandy material should not have an Expansion Index which exceeds 20 and should not contain rocks larger than 8-inches maximum size.

5.6.3. Shrinkage/Bulking Due to Compaction
Based on our review of the in-situ soil density data, preliminary volumetric shrinkage on the order of 10 to 15 percent as a result of compaction of onsite soil may be assumed.

5.6.4. Excavation Characteristics
The earth materials underlying the site should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthwork equipment in good working condition. Some gravels and man-made debris should be anticipated within the fill soils. Caved-in conditions should be anticipated in the sandy soil during temporary excavation.

5.7. Temporary Excavation
The maximum recommended height of unsurcharged, temporary vertical excavations in the earth materials at the site is 5 feet. Excavations above this height should be trimmed to a 1:1 (H:V) ratio where the space is available. Surcharge loads, including construction vehicles and materials, should not be placed within five (5) feet of the unsupported excavation edge.

Excavations shall not remove the lateral support from a public way, from an adjacent property or from an existing structure. Where proper temporary vertical excavations are not feasible due to space constraints, slot-cut or temporary shoring may be utilized. Temporary excavation may be proceeded with the “A-B-C” slot cut method with a maximum 8-foot slot width to a maximum height of 8 feet (Plate SC-1). The excavated slots should not be left open overnight and should be backfilled on the same day it was excavated before the next set of slots are excavated.

Temporary shoring consisting of “trench box” system may be used for surcharged footing or trench excavations (if applicable). It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient shoring during construction.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

Surfaces exposed in slope excavations should be kept moist but not saturated to minimize raveling and sloughing during construction. Adequate provisions should be made to protect the slopes from erosion during periods of rainfall. Water should not be allowed to pond on the top of the excavation or to flow towards it. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation.

All excavations shall be made in accordance with the regulations of the State of California, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, (Cal/OSHA). These recommended temporary excavation slopes do not preclude local raveling and sloughing. Provided our recommendations are followed, the resulting temporary excavations are anticipated to be safe from a geotechnical standpoint for the proposed construction operations and should not expose workers to hazards due to cave-ins, provided that geologic conditions exposed by the excavations are as anticipated.

Confined or trench excavations (i.e. retaining walls or utility trench excavations) should be made in accordance with the regulations of the State of California, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). We recommend that confined excavations should be shored using hydraulic shoring, screw jacks or timber shoring, as determined by the project engineer.

All temporary excavations at the site should be observed and monitored by our representative to verify soil conditions so that any necessary modifications can be made based on variations of soil encountered at the site. Surcharged temporary excavations and shoring should be continuously observed by our representative. If adverse conditions are encountered during excavations, additional recommendations will be provided.

It is recommended that a pre-excavation site meeting be attended by the grading contractor, the soils engineer and an agency representative to discuss methods and sequence of excavation.

5.8. Conventional Footings
Conventional footings can be used for support of the proposed structures, provided footings are founded on compacted fill. The reinforcement of footings shall be designed by the project structural engineer.

Continuous footings should be at least 18 inches in width and at least 24 inches deep founded on compacted fill, and may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf.

Square footings should be at least 24 inches in width and at least 24 inches deep founded on compacted fill, and may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf.

The allowable bearing capacity can increase 300 psf for each additional foot of width, and 450 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum allowable capacity of 4,500 psf.

The bearing pressure given is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

The estimated static settlement is expected to be less than ½ inch with differential settlement estimated to be less than ¼ inch within a span of 30 feet. Settlement of the proposed foundation system supported in dense sand is expected to occur on initial load application.

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure within compacted fill. An allowable coefficient of friction of

0.3 may be used with the dead load forces. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf.

When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third.

5.9. Conventional Footings for Ancillary Structures
For light-weight ancillary structures (e.g. fence walls, trash enclosures, planter walls, etc.), conventional shallow footings can be used, provided that footings are placed on compacted fill per our “Site Preparation and Earthwork” recommendations.

For the design of spread footings for other light-weight structures, we recommend the bottom of square or continuous footings be founded at least 12 inches below the proposed ground surface. A minimum footing width of 18 inches is recommended for square footings and 12 inches for continuous footings. The allowable bearing value for footings with above minimum sizes is 1,500 psf for dead plus live load. Based on the allowable net bearing pressures presented above, static settlement is anticipated to be less than ½ inch.

Differential settlement is expected to be up to one-half of the total settlement over a 30-foot span. Most of the static settlement at the project site is expected to occur immediately after the application of the load.

Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used with the dead load forces. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by onethird.

5.10. Slab-On-Grade
Concrete slab-on-grade may be used for the proposed building and should be supported on compacted fill, per the “Site Preparation and Earthwork” recommendations.

Concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with a minimum of #4 rebar spaced not exceeding 16 inches on center, each way. The project structural engineer should design the reinforcement of slab based on the design performance criteria.

5.11. Moisture Retarder
Slabs to be covered with flooring should be protected by an acceptable plastic vapor retarder/barrier (minimum 10 mil thickness) placed on the firm subgrade. If moisture vapor transmission is a concern to the facility owner, an expert should be consulted to provide August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

additional recommendations for the design and construction of slabs in moisture sensitive flooring areas.

5.12. Hardscape
Patios, steps, walkways, etc. are not normally subject to building code requirements for structural support. In order to reduce the potential for distress due to potential settlement, the hardscape should be supported by compacted fill, and it may be desirable to provide additional steel and concrete thickness determined by the project structural engineer. At a minimum, hardscape slab should be reinforced with a minimum of #4 rebar spaced at a maximum distance of 16 inches on center, each way. It should be noted that hardscape constructed to the preceding specification may be subject to distress over time. Periodic maintenance or replacement may be necessary.

5.13. Pavement
Prior to placing pavement structural section, the subgrade shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations in “Site Preparation and Earthwork” section.

A flexible pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of base material should be used. A flexible pavement section consisting of 4 inches of concrete over 6 inches of base material should be used for service lanes (truck and loading area), if applicable. The base material should be crushed aggregate base.

As an alternative, a rigid pavement section consisting of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) can be used. The traffic loading is expected to be primarily light vehicles.

Recommendations for the rigid concrete pavement design is provided herein on the following table.

Concrete Thickness 5 inches
95 Percent Compacted Subgrade 12 inches
Contraction Joint Spacing 10 ft.

Depth of Joint 1 inch
Compressive Strength of Concrete @ 28 days 3500 psi
Modulus of Rupture of Concrete @ 28 days 550 psi
Concrete slabs should be separated from other structures or fixed objects within or abutting the paved area by isolation joints. This serves to offset the effects of the differential horizontal and vertical movements of the structures which may fracture the concrete slab.

When isolation joints are located where wheel and other loads are applied, the pavement edge at the joint should be thickened by 20 percent or two inches, whichever is greater.

A joint filler should be applied to any new isolated joints within the concrete slab. The joint filler should extend through the slab thickness and should be recessed below the pavement surface so that the joint can be sealed with joint sealant material. The types of joint filler August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

materials recommended include bituminous mastic, bituminous impregnated cellulose or cork, sponge rubber, or resin-bound cork. Joint filler materials should be installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.

5.14. Drainage Protection
All pad and roof drainage should be collected and transferred to the street or an approved area in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond on the pad or against any foundation or retaining wall.

We recommend a minimum 5 percent slope away from the building foundations for a horizontal distance of 3 feet be established for any landscape areas immediately adjacent to the building foundations. In addition, we recommend a minimum 2 percent slope away from the building foundations be established for any impervious surfaces immediately adjacent to the building foundations for a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet. Lastly, we recommend the installation of roof gutters and downspouts which deposit water into a buried drain system be installed instead of discharging surface water into planter areas adjacent to structures.

It is the responsibility of the contractor and ultimately the developer and/or property owner to ensure that all drainage devices are installed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans, our recommendations, and the requirements of all applicable municipal agencies. This includes installation and maintenance of all subdrain outlets and surface drainage devices.

It is recommended that watering be limited or stop altogether during the rainy season when little irrigation is required. Over-saturation of the ground can cause major subsurface damage. Maintaining a proper drainage system will minimize the shrink/swell potential of sub-soils.

5.15. Pre-Construction Survey
We recommend that the client’s representative prepare a pre-construction survey prior to site development. The pre-construction survey should document existing site conditions and performance of offsite structures (i.e. property line block walls and fences) prior to construction (where applicable). If adverse conditions are encountered during excavations, additional recommendations may be necessary.

6. SECTION 111 STATEMENT
It is the finding of this firm that the proposed structures will be safe and that they will not be affected by any hazard from landslide, liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, flood hazard, tsunamis, seiches, settlement or slippage and the completed work will not adversely affect adjacent property, in compliance with the Los Angeles County code, provided that our recommendations are followed.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

7. GENERAL INFORMATION
Accuracy of Provided Drawings
LK Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. (LKGE) investigation, analysis, findings and/or recommendations of a site, with respect to the proposed improvements, are often dependent on several factors or information provided to LKGE by the client and/or the client’s representative(s).

Provided information or Drawings may include topographic surveys, architectural drawings, engineering plans and/or grading plans. It is LKGE’s assumption that the provided Drawings, to be utilized as part of our investigation, accurately depict topographic conditions, existing and/or proposed structures and grades, property lines, easements, etc. It should be understood that LKGE’s use of the provided Drawings does not mean or confirm that the provided Drawings are accurate. If revisions are made to the site Drawings, these documents should be submitted to LKGE as soon as possible. Additional exploration, analysis and/or revised recommendations may be necessary depending upon our review of the revised Drawings, etc.

Environmentally Hazardous or Non-Hazardous Materials
It should be clearly understood that environmental geologic services are not within the scope of this study. Environmental geologic services may include the detection of hazardous or nonhazardous materials, wastes or substances existing on the site from research of available records, exploratory methods, sampling, laboratory analysis, etc. or the recommended treatment and/or disposal of these materials, wastes or substances. If hazardous or non-hazardous materials, wastes or substances are revealed by supplementary investigations or studies or are encountered during construction or grading operations, appropriate environmental investigation(s) and analysis may be required. In this case, mitigation and/or treatment of hazardous or nonhazardous materials, wastes or substances may be necessary. It should be understood that the property owner and potential future property owner(s) shall acknowledge and/or indemnify that LKGE has neither created or contributed to the creation or existence of any hazardous or nonhazardous materials, wastes or substances or otherwise dangerous conditions at the site. All site generated hazardous or non-hazardous materials, wastes or substances are the possession and responsibility of the property owner and potential future property owner(s).

Plan Review
This report is based on the development plans provided to our office. We recommend that the client’s representative(s) provide a complete set of the construction, building and/or grading plans to our office for review and/or approval, prior to initiation of construction. Any change in the scope of the project, from that addressed herein, may require additional geotechnical services by LKGE.

Formal plans should be reviewed and approved by LKGE, prior to initiation of construction. The appropriate government reviewing agency may require that the building and/or grading plans be signed by a licensed geotechnical engineer and/or a licensed engineering geologist, prior to initiation of construction. The plan review fees will be billed in accordance with our current fee schedule.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

Government Reviewing Agency and Additional Geotechnical Services This report is intended for submittal to the appropriate governmental authorities that control the issuance of necessary permits. The client or client’s representative should submit the geotechnical reports to the appropriate government reviewing agency, unless specific arrangements are made with this office. It should be noted that the government reviewing agency has various fees for reviewing geotechnical reports, the fees for which are not included within our scope of work. If applicable, the report submittal fees will be billed in accordance with our current fee schedule. All geotechnical and/or engineering geologic aspects of the proposed development are subject to review and approval by the government reviewing agency. It should be understood that the government reviewing agency may approve or deny any portion of the proposed development, which may require additional geotechnical services by this office. Additional geotechnical services may include review responses, supplemental letters, plan review and signature, construction observations, meetings, etc. The fees for generating additional reports, letters, exploration, analysis, etc. will be billed on a time and material basis, per our previously approved work acknowledgment or a pre-determined, agreed fee.

Site Observations during Construction
The appropriate government reviewing agency or building department requires that the geotechnical consultant of record provide site observations during grading and construction. The purpose of the site inspections is to verify site geotechnical and/or engineering geologic conditions and conformance with the intensions of the recommendations addressed herein. Although certain geotechnical and/or engineering geologic observations may not be required by the building department, the more site inspections typically reduce the risk for future problems. It is the client’s or the client’s representative(s) responsibility to contact the appropriate building department or building official regarding approval for all required inspections. Following is a general list of inspections required by this firm.
a) Pre-grade meetings
b) Foundation excavations for all structures (residence, retaining walls, pools, etc.) c) Temporary excavations/shoring
d) Bottom excavations for primary and/or secondary structural fills e) Keyway excavations
f) Compaction testing for primary and secondary structural fills g) Compaction testing for retaining wall backfill and utility trenches h) Subdrains for retaining walls, swimming pools or ponds It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by this firm prior to placing forms, steel reinforcement and/or concrete. Any fill which is placed at the site should be tested for compaction, especially if used for engineering purposes. All cut-slopes and temporary excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm. Should the observation reveal any unforeseen hazard, appropriate action will be recommended.

Representatives of LKGE will observe work in progress, perform tests on soil, and observe excavations and trenches. Excavation bottom observations should be requested before the placement of subdrains or compacted fill. The approved plans and permits should be on the job August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

site and available for review by this office. The site inspections during construction will be billed on a time and material basis in accordance with our current fee schedule.

It is advised that the client contact LKGE at least 1 week in advance of commencing constructing and/or grading to allow for contractual agreements for geotechnical services during the construction phases of your project. Please advise this office at least 48 hours prior to any required verification or approval.

Construction Site Maintenance
It is the responsibility of the contractor to maintain a safe construction site and for the safe operation of all equipment. When excavations exist on the site, the areas should be secured by placing appropriate coverings, fencing, warning signs, etc. All excavations should be properly covered and secured. Excavation stock piles or spoil piles should either be removed from the site or be property compacted, in accordance with recommendations presented herein. Fill temporarily stock-piled on the site should be placed in stable or approved areas and away from slopes, excavations or improvements. Earth materials generated from grading should not be disposed of along slopes or other unapproved locations. Workers should not be allowed to enter any un-shored excavations over 5-feet in depth, or depth specified herein. Water should not be allowed to saturate open footing trenches. Temporary erosion control measures and proper drainage control should be followed, especially during the rainy season.

It should be understood that the project contractor or others shall supervise and direct the work and they shall be solely responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures, and shall be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, including safety of all persons and property during the performance of the work.

Periodic or continuous observation by LKGE is not intended to include verification of dimensions or review of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures in, on, or near the construction site.

Final As-Built Reports
During or upon completion of the project or grading, the appropriate government reviewing agency or building department often requires interim or final as-built geotechnical reports prepared by this firm to document that foundations and/or fill placement were conducted per the recommendations addressed herein and/or the approved building and/or grading plans. Interim or final geotechnical reports are often required for placement of primary or secondary structural fill, retaining wall backfill, slope repairs, pile observations, etc. The interim or final geotechnical reports will be billed on a time and material basis, in accordance with our current fee schedule.

8. LIMITATIONS
This report has been compiled for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) of the report, and their authorized representatives. It shall not be transferred to, or used by, a third party, to another project or applied to any other project on this site, other than as described herein, without the written consent and/or thorough review by this firm.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

This report and the exploration are subject to the following conditions. Please read this section carefully, it limits our liability.

This report is based on the development plans provided to our office. In the event that any significant changes (from those discussed herein) in the design and/or location of the proposed structure(s) are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by LKGE and the conclusions and recommendations are modified and/or approved by this firm after such review.

The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on the findings and observations made at the test pit, trench and/or boring locations. While no great variations in fill, soil and/or bedrock conditions are anticipated, if conditions are encountered during construction which appears to differ from those disclosed herein, this firm should be notified immediately, so as to consider the need for modifications or revised geotechnical recommendations. Compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations during construction requires our review during construction which pertains to the specific recommendations contained herein.

The subsurface conditions, excavations, characteristics and geologic structure described herein and shown on the enclosed cross-section(s) have been projected from individual test pits, trenches and/or borings placed on the subject property. The subsurface conditions and excavation characteristics, and geologic structure shown should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between or away from these exploratory excavations. The projection of geologic data is based on available information and experience and should not be considered exact.

It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground-water may occur at the site due to variations in rainfall, temperature, irrigation, water line leaks, sewage disposal and/or other factors not evident at the time of measurements reported herein. LKGE assumes no responsibility for groundwater variations which may occur across the site. High groundwater levels can be extremely hazardous and saturation of earth materials can cause subsidence, settlement and/or slippage at the site.

The intent of this report is to advise our client and/or client’s representative(s) on soils and engineering geologic conditions at the site with respect to the proposed improvements.

Implementation of the advice presented in the Recommendations Section of this report is intended to reduce the risk associated with the proposed project and should not be construed to imply total performance of the project. It should be understood that geotechnical consulting and the contents of this report are not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical aspect of this project, should be reported to this firm as soon as possible.

Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty or is described as an inexact science or art. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are partly based on; 1) the evaluation of technical data gathered by this firm, 2) standard of practice, 3) experience, and, 4) professional judgment. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein should be considered advice. Other geotechnical consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted practice.

No warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of the agreement and included in this report.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

It should be understood that LKGE’s services are limited to the disciplines of soils engineering and/or engineering geology. While LKGE may refer various professionals or outside services, working in associated disciplines, to their client’s or client’s representatives, LKGE is not responsible for the performance of work by third parties, which may include, but are not limited to, surveyors, civil or structural engineers, architects, contractors, etc. It should be clearly understood that LKGE is not a licensed surveyor, architect, civil or structural engineer or contractor. LKGE’s periodic or continuous inspection(s) of geotechnical work on an LKGE project shall not relieve third party professionals of their responsibility to perform their work in accordance with the applicable and/or approved geotechnical reports, plans, specifications, safety requirements, etc. It should be understood that LKGE’s periodic or continuous inspection(s) of geotechnical work on an LKGE project does not imply that LKGE is observing, verifying and/or approving all site work. LKGE will only make site inspections, per our approved work authorization agreement(s) and/or related to the appropriate geotechnical field services provided by LKGE and will not relieve others of their professional responsibilities.

Should the project be delayed beyond the period of one year after the date of this report, the site should be observed and the report reviewed to consider possible changed conditions.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to assure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the designers and builders for the project.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708

9. REFERENCES
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte

7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, SHZ Report 024, 45 pp.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, 108 pp.

California Geological Survey, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones, El Monte Quadrangle, California, Scale 1"=2,000', Released March 25.

Dibblee, T.W. and Ehrenspeck, H.E., 1999, Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangle, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-69, Scale 1”=2,000’.

State of California, California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007, 48 p.

Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures For Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, 70 pages.

Southern California Earthquake Center, 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, 132 pages.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
PLATES
Scale: 1” = 20’
0 20 40
129, 133 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Site Plan
& Geotechnical Exploration Map
August 2020 Project 20-0708 Plate 1

EXPLANATION
B-1 Boring Location
N
B-2
B-1
B-3
--- POPLAR AVENUE --- Proposed At-Grade 4-Story Apartment Building 129-133 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Regional Geologic Map
August 2020 Project 20-0708 Plate 2
Reference: Dibblee, 1999, Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangle.

SCALE
SITE
129-133 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Seismic Hazard Zones Map
August 2020 Project 20-0708 Plate 3
CGS, 2017, Earthquake Fault Zones of the El Monte Quadrangle.

Reference: CGS, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones of the El Monte Quadrangle.

SITE
129-133 Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
Historically Highest Groundwater Map
August 2020 Project 20-0708 Plate 3
Reference: CGS ,1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte 7.5-Minute Quadrangle.

SITE
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
Appendix A
Field Exploration
We performed a field exploration consisting of logging of three (3) exploratory soil borings on July 23, 2020. The exploration was performed using hand labor. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 21 feet below the existing grade. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1.

The Boring Logs are presented on Plates A-1 through A-3. The Boring Logs describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and show the field and laboratory tests performed. The borings were logged by an engineer or geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. Drive and bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings and delivered to the geotechnical laboratory for testing.

A California modified sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil encountered. This sampler consists of a 3-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 2.4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) split barrel shaft that was driven a total of 6-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in brass rings for laboratory testing. Additional soil from each drive remaining in the cutting shoe was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil.

Upon completion of the geologic and geotechnical logging, the borings were backfilled with soil derived from the cuttings.

Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was performed using the falling head boring test method in accordance with the Los Angeles County “Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration” dated June 30, 2017. The water level was measured to the nearest tenth of a foot and converted to inches in the calculation. The infiltration rate is shown in the table below and the raw data is attached.

Soil Infiltration Rate
Boring
No.

Total Depth
of Boring (ft)
Depth of
Testing Zone (ft)
Soil Description
of Testing Zone
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
B-1 20 15 – 20 Sandy Silt 0.72

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
26 35
9 16
10 17
22 50
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings
A-1
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :
25 20

13.9 101.0 CL Sandy CLAY; red brown to gray brown; stiff damp; dry; more sand Total depth = 21 ft
15 16.3 109.4 CL Sandy CLAY; red brown; stiff damp; dry; porous C
10 16.2 109.9 CL/ML Sandy CLAY to Sandy SILT; red brown; stiff damp; dry; riotleks 5 10.4 117.5 CL Sandy CLAY; orange brown; stiff; dry DS DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: grass lawn 0
Older Alluvium (Qae) EI, CR
CL Sandy CLAY; orange brown; stiff; dry
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered Automatic Trip / Eri = 81% SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
N/A 8 inches Charlies Soil Sampling
Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hollow Stem Auguer 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
129 - 133 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0708 B-1

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.

Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hand tool 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
129 - 133 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0708 B-2
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered N/A SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
N/A 5 inches JG
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: grass lawn 0
Older Alluvium (Qae)
CL/ML Sandy CLAY to Sandy SILT; orange brown; stiff; dry 5 12.0 114.9 CL/ML Sandy CLAY to Sandy SILT; orange brown; stiff; dry

13.3 97.1 CL/ML Sandy CLAY to Sandy SILT; orange brown; stiff; dry 10 Total depth = 10 ft
15 20
25 * Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings
A-2
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :

MOISTURE
(%)

DRY UNIT WT
(pcf)
USCS
Bulk Sample
Cal. Mod. Sample
SPT Sample
Groundwater Level
PLATE NO.
* Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings
A-3
LEGEND ACRONYM : FC: fine content; PA: particle size analysis; DS: direct shear; C: consolidation; PI: Atterberg limits; EI: expansive index; CR: corrosivity; CP: compaction curve; R: R-value NOTES :
25 20
15 Total depth = 10 ft
10 10.5 104.2 CL/ML Sandy CLAY to Sandy SILT; orange brown; stiff; dry C
5 13.1 107.7 CL/ML Sandy CLAY to Sandy SILT; orange brown; medium stiff; dry Older Alluvium (Qae)
CL Sandy CLAY; orange brown; medium stiff; dry
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS PER 6"

DESCRIPTION

LAB TEST
Surface: grass lawn 0
GROUNDWATER DEPTH (ft) HAMMER TYPE & EFFICIENCY LOGGED BY Not Encountered N/A SL
SURFACE ELEVATIOIN (ft) BOREHOLE DIAMETER DRILLER
N/A 5 inches JG
Monetebello, CA DRILLING METHOD DATE DRILLED
Hand tool 7/23/2020

BORING LOG
PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT NO. HOLE ID
129 - 133 N. Poplar Avenue 20-0708 B-3

BORING PERCOLATION TESTING DATA
Reference: Los Angeles County (2014, 2017). Guidelines For Design, Investigation, and Reporting LID Stormwater Infiltration, GS200.1 & GS200.2 Project No.: 20-0708
Project Name: 129-133 N. Poplar Ave., Montebello, CA
Boring No.: B-1
Diameter of Boring (D): 8.0 inches
Depth of Boring (db): 20.0 feet = 240 inches
Diameter of Perc. Pipe : 3.0 inches
Length of Pipe (dp) : 20.0 feet = 240 inches
Perforated Section Depth: 15-20 feet

PRE-SOAK
Date: 7/23/2020
Start Time: 7:45 AM
Elapsed Time: 30.00 minutes
Water Remaining: yes

DETERMINE READING TIME INTERVAL REDUCTION FACTORS
Date: 7/23/2020 Boring method: RF t = 2 (default)
Start Time: 8:15 AM Site variability, number of tests: RF v = 1.00 (1 ~ 3) Elapsed Time: 30.00 minutes Long-term siltation, maintenance: RF s = 1.00 (1 ~ 3) Water Remaining: yes Total Reduction Factor: RF = RF t x RF v x RF s PERCOLATION TEST Test Date: 7/23/2020 Test Performer: SL Calculated by: SL Reading
Number Initial Time Final Time Elapsed Time
Initial depth to
water surface
Final depth
to water
surface
Initial
height of
water
column
Drop of
water
column
Water
column
area factor
Raw
Percolation
Rate
Total
Reduction
Factor
Design
Infiltration
Rate
T i T f T dwi dwf di d RF k= k i / RF
(min) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inch/hr)
1 8:45 AM 9:15 AM 30 199.2 205.2 40.8 6.0 10.5 1.15 2.0 0.57 2 9:15 AM 9:45 AM 30 205.2 211.2 34.8 6.0 9.0 1.34 2.0 0.67 3 9:45 AM 10:15 AM 30 211.2 216.6 28.8 5.4 7.5 1.44 2.0 0.72 4 10:15 AM 10:45 AM 30 216.6 221.2 23.4 4.6 6.3 1.45 2.0 0.73 5 10:45 AM 11:15 AM 30 221.4 225.1 18.6 3.7 5.2 1.43 2.0 0.72 6 11:15 AM 11:45 AM 30 225.1 228.2 14.9 3.1 4.3 1.44 2.0 0.72 Recommended Design Infiltration Rate (inch/hr) = 0.72
Reference: Los Angeles County (2014, 2017). Guidelines For Design, Investigation, and Reporting LID Stormwater Infiltration, GS200.1 & GS200.2 (2*d i -
 d)/D
k i = d/CF/
T (inch/hr)
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
Representative soil samples collected from our field exploration were delivered to the EGL, Inc. of Arcadia, California for testing, and to evaluate relevant engineering properties. Based on our review of the laboratory data, LKGE concurs with and accept the laboratory testing results performed by EGL, Inc.

Laboratory Moisture Content and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry densities of selected driven samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D 2937. The results are shown on the attached EGL report.

Direct Shear Test
Direct shear testing was conducted on representative soil samples to determine their shear strength in accordance with the ASTM D3080. The sample was saturated under normal load before testing. For each test, three samples were placed, one at a time, into the test apparatus and subjected to a range of normal loads appropriate for the anticipated conditions. The samples were then sheared at a constant shear rate of 0.01-inches per minute. Shear deformation was recorded until a maximum of about 0.3 inches of horizontal displacement was achieved. Ultimate shear strengths for each sample were selected from the shear stress-displacement data. Based on the test data, the stress generally becomes constant beyond 0.2 inch of displacement and it is our opinion that the samples were sheared to its ultimate strength status. The shear strength parameters are shown in the following table and on the attached EGL report.

Sample
Location
Depth
(ft.)
Soil
Type Soil Description
Ultimate Strength Parameters
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
B-1 5 Qae Sandy CLAY 178 28
Consolidation Test
Consolidation testing was performed on representative soil samples under consolidated drained conditions per the ASTM D2435 Method. Axial loads were carried to a maximum of 8,000 psf. To hasten consolidation, investigate the collapsibility potential and similar possible adverse field conditions, water was added to an axial load of 2,000 psf. Compressibility of the soils within the zone of significant stress was investigated and the results are provided on the attached EGL report. The collapse/swell potential is tabulated below:

Sample
Location Depth
(ft.)
Soil
Type Soil Description
Percent of
Collapse (-)/
Swell (+)
Collapse
Index
B-1 10 Qae Sandy CLAY/Sandy SILT 0 None
B-3 3 Qae Sandy CLAY/Sandy SILT -1.4 Slightly
August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
Expansion Index Test
Expansion Index testing was performed on representative soil sample(s) per the ASTM D4829 Method. The soil was molded to a 4-inch diameter, 1-inch thick specimen under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation, and then loaded with 144 psf equivalent surcharge under inundated condition. Readings of volumetric swell were taken for a period of 24 hours. The test results are presented in the attached AGI report.

Sample
Location Depth
(ft.)
Soil
Type Soil Description Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
B-1 0 – 5 Qae Sandy CLAY/Sandy SILT 30 Low
Corrosivity Tests
Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on a representative soil sample in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 643. The chloride content of the selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 422. The sulfate content of the selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 417. The test results are presented in the attached EGL report.

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NAME: 129 Poplar Avenue, Montebello EGLAB JOB NO.: 20-122-036 PROJECT NO.: 20-0708 CLIENT: LK Geotechnical
DATE: 8/4/2020 SUMMARIZED BY: JT
DRY

MOISTURE DENSITY

BORING SAMPLE DEPTH CONTENT ASTM
NO. NO. (ft) ASTM D2216 D2937
(%) (PCF)
B-1 N/A 5.0 10.4 117.5
B-1 N/A 10.0 16.2 109.9
B-1 N/A 15.0 16.3 109.4
B-1 N/A 20.0 13.9 101.0
B-2 N/A 5.0 12.0 114.9
B-2 N/A 8.0 13.3 97.1
B-3 N/A 3.0 13.1 107.7
B-3 N/A 6.0 10.5 104.2
gd S
(pcf) (%)
1000 116.1 100
2000 116.8 100
4000 118.9 100
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Sample
Type
Soil
Type
Symbol Cohesion
(PSF)
Friction
Angle
B-1 N/A 5.0 Ring CL 336 28
178 28
Project Name:

EGLAB, INC.
129 Poplar Avenue, Montebello

10.4 17.5 DIRECT SHEAR
Normal
Stress (psf)
Initial
Moisture (%)
Final
Moisture (%)
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0708
08/20 (ASTM D3080) Figure

10.4 19.1 EGLAB Project No.: , California 20-122-036

10.4 18.3
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

SHEAR STRESS (PSF)

NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
Peak Ultimate
Project Name:
129 Poplar Avenue, Montebello
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0708
EGLAB Project No.: 20-122-036
08/20 Figure
EGLAB, INC.

CONSOLIDATION
(ASTM D2435)
Init. Dry
Density (PCF)
Init. Void
Ratio
B-1 N/A 10.0 CL-ML 16.2 110.1 0.530
Symbol Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(Ft.)
Soil
Type
Init. Moisture
Content (%)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 0.1 1 10 100
DEFORMATION (%)

COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF)

SATURATED
Project Name:
129 Poplar Avenue, Montebello
Client: LK Geotechnical
Project No.: 20-0708
EGLAB Project No.: 20-122-036
08/20 Figure
Symbol Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(Ft.)
Soil
Type
Init. Moisture
Content (%)
B-3 N/A 3.0 CL 13.1
EGLAB, INC.

CONSOLIDATION
(ASTM D2435)
Init. Dry
Density (PCF)
Init. Void
Ratio
107.9 0.562
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 0.1 1 10 100
DEFORMATION (%)

COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF)

SATURATED

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NAME: 129 Poplar Avenue, Montebello EGLAB JOB No.: 20-122-036 PROJECT No.: 20-0708 CLIENT: LK Geotechnical
DATE: 8/4/2020 SUMMARIZED BY: JT
Chloride Sulfate Minimum
pH Content Content Resistivity Expansion
Boring Depth CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans CalTrans Index
No. (ft) 643 422 417 643 ASTM
(ppm) (% by weight) (ohm-cm) D 4829
B-1 N/A 0-5.0 7.81 255 0.005 3,800 30
Sample
No.

August 20, 2020
LKGE Project No. 20-0708
Appendix C
Engineering Calculations and Design Details
List of Plates
Plate No. Plate Name
SC-1 Slot Cut Analysis
Slot Cut Dimensions
Slot Cut Height, H = 8.0 ft
Slot Cut Width, B = 8.0 ft
Surcharge, q = 1.0 kips/ft
Soil Parameters
Unit weight of soil,  = 125.0 pcf
Cohesion, C = 178.0 psf
Friction angle,  = 28.0 degrees
Generalized Limit Equilibrium Analysis
Potential sliding plane angle, L= 59.0 degrees
Potential sliding plane length, L = 9.3 ft
Depth of centroid, d = 2.7 ft
Unit Driving Force Calculations
Area of sliding, A = 19.2 ft2
Weight of soil, W = 2.4 kips/ft
Driving force, FD = 2.9 kips/ft
Unit Resistant Force Calculations
Resistance on sliding plane, RB = 2.6 kips/ft
Resistance on side walls, RW = 0.272 ksf
Factor of Safety Calulations
F.S. = (RB*B+2*A*RW)/(FD*B) = 1.3 >1.25 O.K.

DATE: August 2020 PROJECT # 20-0708 PLATE

SLOT CUT ANALYSIS
129-133 N. Poplar Avenue
Montebello, California
SC-1
B

SLOT CUT
H
 L L
Centroid

CROSS SECTION

SLOT CUT SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

APPENDIX D
ZC Sustainability,
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue &
129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue
CEQA SCPE Energy & Water
Efficiency Compliance Memo
January 10, 2022.
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
January 10, 2022
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 1 of 9

1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memo is to describe how the 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N.

Poplar Avenue project (Project), located in Montebello, CA 90640, will meet the Sustainable Communities Project CEQA Exemption (SCPE) criteria regarding energy and water efficiency (Public Resources Code Section 21155.1(a)(8)).

The Project consists of two residential buildings:
· 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue consists of 140 dwelling units in a four-story building over two floors of subterranean parking.
· 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue consists of 16 dwelling units in a three-story building.

The Subsection (a) (8) requirements for Energy Efficiency and Water Usage Reduction are as follows:

The buildings in the transit priority project are 15 percent more energy efficient than required by Chapter 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the buildings and landscaping are designed to achieve 25 percent less water usage than the average household use in the region.

Results Summary
The Proposed Designs, utilizing the energy efficiency and water usage reduction strategies discussed in this memo, comply with both requirements. The analysis
results are as follows:
· Energy Efficiency
· 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue: 15.8%
more energy efficient than Title 24-2019, Part

6. · 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue: 15.2% more
energy efficient than Title 24-2019, Part 6.
· Water Usage
o 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue: 50.0% less
water usage than the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) baseline.
o 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue: 56.5% less
water usage than the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) baseline.
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue
Energy model rendering
129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue
Energy model rendering
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 2 of 9

2. Energy Efficiency
Both Project buildings utilized the Title 24-2019 Part 6 Whole Building Performance Approach to show compliance with the energy efficiency requirement.
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue is subject to the High-Rise Residential Title 24-2019 Energy Code, while 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue is subject to the Low-Rise Residential Title 24-2019 Energy Code. As such, two separate energy models have been developed, using Title 24-2019 approved software, which is CBECC-Com for High-Rise Residential buildings (four-stories and above) and CBECC-Res for Low-Rise Residential buildings (up to three stories).

Since the project is currently in the entitlement review stage, all building features have not been fully designed. Assumptions based on experience with similar projects in this climate zone have been used when actual design information was not yet available.

Note: This analysis and the listed design features will be used to inform the final design. Any modification of the listed design features impacting energy efficiency will be analyzed to ensure the required 15% threshold is met.

Energy Efficiency Measures
The following Proposed Energy Efficiency Measures contribute to the reported energy savings:
· High-performance Low-e windows with very low Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) and U-value. · Overhangs & balconies shading the glazed patio doors below. · Wood framed walls with R-21 batt insulation.
· Wood framed roof with R-38 batt insulation.
· Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) certified high-reflectance cool roof. · Central water heating system with condensing natural gas water heaters. · High-efficiency HVAC systems serving residential units and common spaces. · A Photovoltaic (PV) system will further reduce energy use. · Reduced Lighting wattage from LED fixtures throughout the buildings, including Common Spaces and Amenities, with Daylight and Motion Sensor controls. · Low-flow fixtures: although energy savings from low-flow fixtures are not captured in the Title 24 energy analysis, this strategy significantly reduces the hot water usage and associated heating energy requirements.

The preliminary Title 24-2019 Reports, showing the Percentage Better than Standard (i.e. the Title 24-2019 Baseline Design), are shown on the next page.
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 3 of 9
Title 24-2019 Energy Performance Results
Following are the energy performance summary results from the Title 24-2019 Reports. · 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue, Title 24-2019 Compliance Results The Title 24-2019 TDV Energy Use reduction is from 49.23 (Title 24 Standard Design) to 41.43 (Proposed Design). The Proposed Design is 15.8% more energy efficient than Title 24-2019, Part 6. · 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue, Title 24-2019 Compliance Results The Title 24-2019 TDV Energy Use reduction is from 80.82 (Title 24 Standard Design) to 68.52 (Proposed Design). The Proposed Design is 15.2% more energy efficient than Title 24-2019, Part 6.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1 Project Location (city) Montebello 8 Standards Version Compliance2019 2 CA Zip Code 90640 9 Compliance Software (version) CBECC-Com 2019.2.0 3 Climate Zone 9 10 Weather File LOS-ANGELES-DOWNTOWN_722874_CZ2010.epw 4 Total Conditioned Floor Area in Scope 146,856 ft2 11 Building Orientation (deg) (N) 16 deg 5 Total Unconditioned Floor Area 136,090 ft2 12 Permitted Scope of Work NewComplete 6 Total # of Stories (Habitable Above Grade) 4 13 Building Type(s) High-Rise Residential 7 Total # of dwelling units 140 14 Gas Type NaturalGas
C1. COMPLIANCE RESULTS FOR PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS (Annual TDV Energy Use, kBtu/ft 2-yr)

COMPLIES
Energy Component Standard Design (TDV) Proposed Design (TDV) Compliance Margin (TDV)1 Space Heating 3.66 3.49 0.17
Space Cooling 15.62 13.15 2.47
Indoor Fans 9.34 5.90 3.44
Heat Rejection -- -- --
Pumps & Misc. 0.00 -- --
Domestic Hot Water 20.05 18.53 1.52
Indoor Lighting 0.56 0.36 0.20
ENERGY STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TOTAL 49.23 41.43 7.80 (15.8%) 1 Notes: The number in parenthesis following the Compliance Margin in column 4. represents the Percent Better than Standard.

GENERAL INFORMATION
01 Project Name Montebello 16-Unit - Low-Rise
02 Run Title Bldg Department Submittal
03 Project Location 129 & 133 N. Poplar Ave
04 City Montebello 05 Standards Version 2019
06 Zip code 90640 07 Software Version CBECC-Res 2019.2.0 08 Climate Zone 9 09 Front Orientation (deg/ Cardinal) 285 10 Building Type Multifamily 11 Number of Dwelling Units 16 12 Project Scope NewConstruction 13 Number of Bedrooms 30 14 Addition Cond. Floor Area (ft2) 0 15 Number of Stories 2 16 Existing Cond. Floor Area (ft2
) n/a 17 Fenestration Average U-factor 0.3
18 Total Cond. Floor Area (ft2) 16908 19 Glazing Percentage (%) 12.16% 20 ADU Bedroom Count n/a 21 ADU Conditioned Floor Area n/a 22 Is Natural Gas Available? Yes

ENERGY USE SUMMARY
Energy Use (kTDV/ft2-yr) Standard Design Proposed Design Compliance Margin Percent Improvement Space Heating 3.83 4.39 -0.56 -14.6
Space Cooling 33.08 19.94 13.14 39.7
IAQ Ventilation 4.11 4.11 0 0
Water Heating 39.8 40.08 -0.28 -0.7
Self Utilization/Flexibility Credit n/a 0 0 n/a
Compliance Energy Total 80.82 68.52 12.3 15.2
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 4 of 9

3. Water Usage
The Subsection (a) (8) water efficiency requirement is that each project must achieve a 25 percent water use reduction from the regional average household water use.

For residential and mixed-use, residential/commercial buildings, the baseline is the average regional water use in Gallons Per Capita Per Day of 120 gallons as stated in the Metropolitan Water District Water Tomorrow Annual Report to the California State Legislature, Covering Fiscal Year 2019/20 (p. 28). The report is available at:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WWAMaterials%20Provided%20to%20WaterDM/3.1_1.2_Regional_Progress_R eport.pdf#search=3%2E1%5F1%2E2%5FRegional%5FProgress%5FReport This is multiplied by 3.3, the assumed residential occupancy based on the most recent census data for households in the City of Montebello, to determine the average daily water use per residential unit.

The projected water use utilizes the flow rates are as follows. Other elements are calculated using accepted industry practice. The Title 24 CALGreen-permitted maximum fixture flow rates are as follows:

1. Showerheads: 1.8 GPM (gallons per minute, as required by CALGreen)

2. Lavatory faucets: 1.2 GPM (as required by CALGreen)

3. Kitchen faucets: 1.5 GPM (as required by CALGreen)

4. Tank water closets (toilets): 1.28 GPF (gallons per flush; as required by CALGreen)

5. Commercial clothes washers: Energy Star certified, 3.5 IWF (Integrated Water Factor)

6. Dishwashers: Energy Star certified, 3.5 GPC (Gallons per Cycle) Projected Water Savings
The Water Use Analyses for this project, included in Appendix B, calculates both the baseline and projected water use, followed by the percentage savings. The projected water use for both 116, 128 and 136 N. Popular Avenue, and 129 and 133 N. Popular Avenue, is overall more efficient than required by Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen, which includes water efficiency measures to reduce water use. The specified water efficiency measures listed above would sufficiently reduce water use so that no additional water reduction measures would be necessary.

The water use reduction is as follows:
· For 116, 128 and 136 N. Popular Avenue, from 396.0 (baseline per unit) to 172.0 gpd (projected per unit). The projected water use savings is 50.0%.
· For 129 and 133 N. Popular Avenue, from 396.0 (baseline per unit) to 172.0 gpd (projected per unit). The projected water use savings is 56.5%.
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 5 of 9
Appendix A: Energy Analysis Design Features
The following table lists the building’s design features and assumptions used in the energy analysis. These assumptions are based on the Current Design and on experience with similar projects in this climate zone when design information was not available at the time of this memo.

Feature
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar
Avenue 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue
Project Description
Location Montebello, CA 90640
CA Climate Zone CZ-9
Number of units 140 Units 16 Units
Stories above grade 4 3
Covered Parking 2 floors of subterranean parking 1 floor of ground floor parking Energy Code Title 24–2019, Part 6
Compliance Path Whole Building Performance Approach
Software CBECC-Com 2019.2.0 SP1 CBECC-Res 2019.2.0
Envelope
Exterior Walls Wood framed, 2x6, 16” OC + R-21 batt
Underground floor/slab Uninsulated Slab on Grade
Floor above Parking Uninsulated Concrete Slab
Exterior Raised Floors N/A
Floors between conditioned
spaces1 Wood framed, 16” OC, + R-19 batt insulation
Top Roof Wood framed, 16” OC, + R-38 batt insulation
Cool Roof (Top Roof) CRRC certified, 3-yr aged Reflectance = 0.70 & Emittance = 0.75 Roof Deck Wood framed, 16” OC + R-38 batt insulation
Doors Solid Wood Door, U = 0.50
Windows
Residential units Dual pane, Low-e, in Vinyl Frame, U = 0.28 & SHGC = 0.20 (NFRC Rated Values)
Gym, Office, Lobby Dual pane, Low-e, in non-thermally broken metal frame U = 0.47 & SHGC = 0.22 (NFRC Rated Values)
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 6 of 9
Ventilation
Residential Units1 Continuously operating (bathroom) supply and exhaust fans, Outside Air (OSA) cfm per Title 24 requirements
Other Spaces HVAC provides OSA, cfm per Title 24
Unconditioned
occupied/transition spaces Exhaust fans provide OSA, cfm per Title 24 1Note that HVAC is not allowed to supply outside air in residential units HVAC Residential Units
System Type Split System Heat-Pumps Split System Heat-Pumps Cooling Efficiency 16 SEER 16 SEER
Heating Efficiency 8.5 HSPF 8.5 HSPF
Supply fan Constant Volume Constant Volume
Supply fan power 0.5” External Static Pressure 0.5” External Static Pressure Filters MERV-13 MERV-13
Duct Location In ceiling (within the conditioned envelope) HVAC Corridors
System Type Ventilation Only Ventilation Only
HVAC Gym & Office
System Type Split System Heat-Pumps Split System Heat-Pumps Cooling Efficiency 16 SEER 16 SEER
Heating Efficiency 8.5 HSPF 8.5 HSPF
Supply fan Constant Volume
Supply fan power 0.5” External Static Pressure (ESP)
Capacities Per ASHRAE Fundamentals: 25% heating and 15% cooling oversized Controls Occupancy Sensor Control in required spaces
Service Water Heating
System Type Central Water Heating System Central Water Heating System Water Heater type Natural Gas Water Heaters Natural Gas Water Heaters Heating Efficiency 0.95 Efficiency 0.95 Efficiency
Hot water loop control Timer & temperature Timer & temperature 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 7 of 9
Solar Hot Water No Solar Hot Water included
Indoor Lighting
Residential Units1 High Efficacy Fixtures (LED)
Common Spaces Average ~30% Lighting Power Density (LPD, W/sf) savings compared to Title 24-2019 Prescriptive allowances per occupancy type Controls Title 24 Mandatory Daylight and Occupancy Sensor controls Renewable Energy
Photovoltaic (PV) No PV included 40 kW DC PV, per Title 24-2019 HERS Field Verifications
Quality Insulation (QII) NA Yes
Dwelling unit leakage Yes Yes
Verified SEER / HSPF NA Yes
Duct Leakage Testing No Yes
Ducts in conditioned space No Yes
Hot water piping insulation NA Yes
116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 8 of 9
Appendix B: Water Usage Analysis
Fixture Type Occupants = Gallons
Per Day
Showerheads residential 1.8 x 8 x 1 x 462 = 6,652.8
Lavatory faucets residential 1.2 x 0.25 x 5 x 462 = 693.0 Kitchen faucets 1.5 x 4 x 1 x 462 = 2,772.0
Tank water closets (M) 1.28 x 1 x 5 x 231 = 1,478.4
Tank water closets (F) 1.28 x 1 x 5 x 231 = 1,478.4
Clotheswashers (gal/person-day)2 15.1 462 = 6,976.2
Dishwashers (gal/person-day)3 0.7 462 = 323.4
Potable Water Irrigation (gpd (gallons per day))4 = 420.5 Pool Loss5 = 529.5
Total Daily Baseline Water Use (BWU) in Gallons Per Day = 21,786.6 Average Water Use per Household per Day = 21,786.6 gpd/140 units = 155.7 317.1
Water Use per Unit per Day (inc. appliances & landscape) 155.7 Percent Reduction from MWD Baseline 50.0
Assumptions

5. Pool/spa surface total 448 SF (385 SF pool + 63 SF spa). Avg 0.25 inch/0.021 ft loss per day, or 55.8 gallons to be made up per day.

4. Landscaping potable water use calculated using LEED v4 Outdoor Water Use Reduction Calculator v02. Assumes efficient irrigation system and drought tolerant plants. Estimated landscape area is 6,072 SF.

1. Flow rates are the maximum allowed under Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen 116, 128 and 136 N. Popular Avenue, Montebello
Water Use Analysis
Flow Rate1
(gpm or gpf)
Duration
(min or #
flush)
Daily
Uses
Current Water Use per Multi-Family Household (MWD 2019/20 Water Tomorrow Annual Report) Gallons Per Capita Per Day = 120 x 3.3 occupants/unit per 2020 US Census Residential Water Use
140 residential units x 3.3 occupants/unit (per 2020 US Census) = 462 occupants.

3. Dishwashers assumed in each unit (baseline per Homes v4, 0.7 gal per person per day, 6.5 GPC). High efficiency dishwashers can be 4 GPC, therefore 61% of baseline, or 0.43 gal per person per day.

2. Clothes Washer in each unit (baseline per Homes v4, 15.1 gal per person per day, WF=9.5). High efficiency WF=3.2, therefore 33.6% of baseline, or 5.08 gal per person per day. 116, 128 and 136 N. Poplar Avenue & 129 and 133 N. Poplar Avenue CEQA SCPE Energy & Water Efficiency Compliance Memo
www. zc-sustainability.com Page 9 of 9
Fixture Type Occupants = Gallons
Per Day
Showerheads residential 1.8 x 8 x 1 x 53 = 763.2
Lavatory faucets residential 1.2 x 0.25 x 5 x 53 = 79.5 Kitchen faucets 1.5 x 4 x 1 x 53 = 318.0
Tank water closets (M) 1.28 x 1 x 5 x 17 = 108.8
Tank water closets (F) 1.28 x 1 x 5 x 17 = 108.8
Clotheswashers (gal/person-day)2 15.1 53 = 800.3
Dishwashers (gal/person-day)3 0.7 53 = 37.1
Potable Water Irrigation (gpd (gallons per day))4 = 73.3 Total Daily Baseline Water Use (BWU) in Gallons Per Day = 2,751.4 Average Water Use per Household per Day = 2,751.4 gpd/16 units = 172.0 396.0
Water Use per Unit per Day (inc. appliances & landscape) 172.0 Percent Reduction from MWD Baseline 56.5
Assumptions

4. Landscaping potable water use calculated using LEED v4 Outdoor Water Use Reduction Calculator v02. Assumes efficient irrigation system and drought tolerant plants. Estimated landscape area is 840 SF.

1. Flow rates are the maximum allowed under Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen 129 and 133 N. Popular Avenue, Montebello
Water Use Analysis
Flow Rate1
(gpm or gpf)
Duration
(min or #
flush)
Daily
Uses
Current Water Use per Multi-Family Household (MWD 2019/20 Water Tomorrow Annual Report) Gallons Per Capita Per Day = 120 x 3.3 occupants/unit per 2020 US Census Residential Water Use
16 residential units x 3.3 occupants/unit (per 2020 US Census) = 53 occupants.

3. Dishwashers assumed in each unit (baseline per Homes v4, 0.7 gal per person per day, 6.5 GPC). High efficiency dishwashers can be 4 GPC, therefore 61% of baseline, or 0.43 gal per person per day.

2. Clothes Washer in each unit (baseline per Homes v4, 15.1 gal per person per day, WF=9.5). High efficiency WF=3.2, therefore 33.6% of baseline, or 5.08 gal per person per day.

APPENDIX E
Southern California Edison,
Service Area Fact Sheet
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S

SERVICE AREA
Southern California Edison is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, providing electric service to approximately 15 million people through 5 million customer accounts.

SCE’s service area includes portions of 15 counties and hundreds of cities and communities in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal and Southern California.

For more information, visit sce.com
Updated: 4/25/2019

INCORPORATED CITIES AND

COUNTIES SERVED BY SCE

COUNTIES
Fresno Kern Madera Riverside Tuolumne
Imperial Kings Mono San Bernardino Tulare
Inyo Los Angeles Orange Santa Barbara Ventura
CITIES
Adelanto Commerce Hesperia Lynwood Porterville Tehachapi Agoura Hills Compton Hidden Hills Malibu Rancho Cucamonga Temecula Alhambra Corona Highland Mammoth Lakes Rancho Mirage Temple City Aliso Viejo Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Manhattan Beach Rancho Palos Verdes Thousand Oaks Apple Valley Covina Huntington Park Maywood Rancho Santa Margarita Torrance Arcadia Cudahy Indian Wells McFarland Redlands Tulare
Artesia Culver City Industry Menifee Redondo Beach Tustin Avalon Cypress Inglewood Mission Viejo Rialto Twentynine Palms Baldwin Park Delano Irvine Monrovia Ridgecrest Upland
Barstow Desert Hot Springs Irwindale Montclair Rolling Hills Ventura Beaumont Diamond Bar Jurupa Valley Montebello Rolling Hills Estates Victorville Bell Downey La Canada Flintridge Monterey Park Rosemead Villa Park Bell Gardens Duarte La Habra Moorpark San Bernardino Visalia Bellflower Eastvale La Habra Heights Moreno Valley San Dimas Walnut Beverly Hills El Monte La Mirada Murrieta San Fernando West Covina Bishop El Segundo La Palma Newport Beach San Gabriel West Hollywood Blythe Exeter La Puente Norco San Jacinto Westlake Village Bradbury Farmersville La Verne Norwalk San Marino Westminster Brea Fillmore Laguna Beach Ojai Santa Ana Whittier
Buena Park Fontana Laguna Hills Ontario Santa Barbara Wildomar Calabasas Fountain Valley Laguna Niguel Orange Santa Clarita Woodlake (Three Rivers) California City Fullerton Laguna Woods Oxnard Santa Fe Springs Ventura Calimesa Garden Grove Lake Elsinore Palm Desert Santa Monica Yorba Linda Camarillo Gardena Lake Forest Palm Springs Santa Paula Yucaipa Canyon Lake Glendora Lakewood Palmdale Seal Beach Yucca Valley Carpinteria Goleta Lancaster Palos Verdes Estates Sierra Madre Carson Grand Terrace Lawndale Paramount Signal Hill
Cathedral City Hanford Lindsay Perris Simi Valley
Cerritos Hawaiian Gardens Loma Linda Pico Rivera South El Monte Chino Hawthorne Lomita Placentia South Gate
Chino Hills Hemet Long Beach Pomona South Pasadena
Claremont Hermosa Beach Los Alamitos Port Hueneme Stanton Updated: 4/25/2019

FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES
IN SCE’S SERVICE AREA

FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians Benton Paiute Tribe San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Bishop Paiute Tribe Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony Tule River Indian Tribe Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians Colorado River Indian Tribes
Death Valley Timbisha Shoshone Tribe
Morongo Band of Mission Indians

OTHER COMMUNITIES
In addition, SCE serves the majority of unincorporated communities and census-designated places within its service area.

Updated: 4/25/2019

ATTACHMENT F

ATTACHMENT G

BY E-MAIL
March 1, 2022
Alexandra Briseno, Chairperson
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Samantha Nevarez, Administrative Secretary
City of Montebello
Planning and Community Development
1600 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640
[email protected]
Michael Donovan, Assistant Planner
City of Montebello
Planning Division
1600 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Sustainable Communities Project Exemption for Poplar Avenue Residential Project
Dear Chairperson Briseno and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, regarding the proposed development of apartment units on Poplar Avenue, located in the City of Montebello and known as the Poplar Avenue Residential Project (“Project”). The City of Montebello Planning and Community Development department has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 21155.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

However, after reviewing the Project and the associated documents, we conclude that the Project does not meet the requirement for an exemption under CEQA Section 21155.1. SAFER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the Planned Development District, Parking Management Plan, Site Plan Review, and Development Agreement for the Project and instead prepares necessary environmental documents under CEQA.

This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH (Exhibit A) and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) (Exhibit B). We incorporate the Offermann and SWAPE comments herein by reference.

Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
I. Project Description
The proposed project consists of two elements: 140 apartment units in a 73,807 square foot development area and 16 units in a 12,500 square foot development area.

The area surrounding the project site is largely residential, with a motel and an abandoned lot also bordering one of the project sites.

Project A’s construction is expected to last approximately 21 months and will include demolition of the existing buildings onsite. Project B’s construction is expected to last approximately 12 months and will also include demolition of existing buildings onsite.

II. Legal Standard
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. PRC § 21001(d). A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” PRC § 21065; 14 CCR § 15378(a). For this reason, CEQA is concerned with an action’s ultimate “impact on the environment.” Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283. CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” Id. at 277, “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. 14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v.

City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86. First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required.

Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; 14 CCR § Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
15063(a). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. Id. Here, since the County exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies.

CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354. “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ (Citations).” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125. The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 (“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’” (internal citations omitted)).

Here, the City has issued a notice of exemption alleging that the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA review under the Sustainable Communities Project (“SCP”) exemption. PRC § 21155.1. However, as discussed below, this exemption is improper, and instead, a full CEQA analysis, such as an EIR, must be prepared for this Project.

III. Discussion
a. The City Incorrectly Applied CEQA’s Section 21155.1 Sustainable Communities Project Exemption to the Project and Instead a Full CEQA Analysis is Required.

Under the SCP exemption, certain “transit priority” projects are exempt from environmental review under CEQA if they meet various environmental, land use and geographic criteria. PRC 21155.1. However, the SCP exemption cannot apply if a project site is subject to “[r]isk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency.” PRC § 21155.1(a)(6)(C).

Here, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have public health impacts which exceed state standards. Specifically, the Project will result in significant increased cancer risks from emissions of formaldehyde and diesel particular matter in excess of standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, the Project does not qualify for the SCP exemption and the City must prepare appropriate CEQA documents for this Project.

Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
b. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (December 23, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr.

Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. A, p. 2-3.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that future residential occupants would be exposed to a cancer risk of 120 in one million. Ex. A, p.

4. These calculations are assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id. These potential exposure levels exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in accordance with CEQA and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id. at 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors.

Id. at 11-13.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following to develop an EIR which evaluates the Project’s future formaldehyde emissions and Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
establishes mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD level.

Id. at 5-9. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

The failure to address the project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added).

The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project.

Residents will be users of the Project. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language.

CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those individuals is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as that of other nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Because the Project’s formaldehyde emissions constitute a “public health exposure at a level that would exceed” SCAQMD’s significance threshold for increased cancer risk, the Project does not qualify for the SCP exemption. See PRC § 21155.1(a)(6)(C). Therefore, the City must conduct CEQA review of the Project and Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
prepare an adequate MND or EIR to disclose and mitigate the potential environmental impacts to future users of the building.
c. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have a Significant Health Impact as a Result of Diesel Particulate Emissions.

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the Project’s potential impacts on health risk. After assessing the potential impacts of the Project, SWAPE concludes that the Project does not qualify for the SCP exemption due to its potentially significant health risk impact. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B and their comments are briefly summarized here.

One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.1
SWAPE identifies three main reasons for why the Project’s failure to evaluate potential health risk impacts is incorrect.

First, because the Project proponents failed to quantify Project-generated toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions, they also failed to indicate concentrations at which those pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Ex. B, p. 2. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health cause by those emissions. Id.; See Sierra Club v.

County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.

Second, the California Department of Justice recommends the preparation of a quantitative Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.

OEHHA released its most recent guidance document in 2015 describing which types of projects warrant preparation of an HRA. See “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance 1 See CARB Resources - Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.).

Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html. The OEHHA document recommends that if a project’s construction is expected to last at least 2 months, as this Project will, it should be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Ex. B, p. 3. Additionally, if a project is expected to operate for over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Id. SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. An EIR or at least an MND is therefore required to analyze these impacts.

Third, in failing to prepare a construction or operational HRA, the Project also fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Ex. B, p. 3. SWAPE therefore concludes that “an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.” Id.

SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model.

Ex. B, p. 3-7. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 50 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 50 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation are approximately 26.3 in one million for infants, 200 in one million for children, and 66.6 in one million for adults. Id. at 6. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 294 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, adults, and lifetime residents exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. Because the Project’s DPM emissions constitute a “public health exposure at a level that would exceed” SCAQMD’s significance threshold for increased cancer risk, the Project does not qualify for the SCP exemption. See PRC § 21155.1(a)(6)(C). SWAPE recommends that “a full CEQA analysis should be prepared, including a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.” Ex. B, p. 7.

IV. Conclusion
In light of the above comments, the Project does not meet the requirements of the SCP Exemption due to its potential public health risk impacts. The City must prepare an EIR for the Project, or at least an MND, and the draft CEQA document Comment re: Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, Poplar Ave Residential Project March 1, 2022
Planning Commission Hearing
should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: December 23, 2021
To: Amalia Bomley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Poplar Avenue Apartments Project, City of Montebello, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4527)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain 2 of 19
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the Poplar Avenue Apartments Project, City of Montebello, CA, the buildings consist of residential spaces.
4 of 19
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl 5 of 19
acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, 6 of 19
etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in 7 of 19
Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total 8 of 19
formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶!" = #!"!#$
$"#
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of 9 of 19
formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the 10 of 19
winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Poplar Avenue Apartments Project, City of Montebello, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., North Poplar Avenue, East Whittier Boulevard, East Cleveland Avenue, etc.), and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Poplar Avenue Apartments Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (Ceqaology, 2021), the existing ambient noise levels reported in Table 6, range from 43.3 dBA to 78.4 dBA. These noise levels were measured over just a 15-minute period on a Monday, and thus are not representative of the day/night noise levels. An acoustic study consisting of one-week long measurements should be conducted to determine the CNEL and/or Ldn, sound levels.

As a result of the anticipated high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5.

According to the Poplar Avenue Apartments Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (Ceqaology, 2021), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to 11 of 19
consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination 12 of 19
of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air 13 of 19
ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. 14 of 19
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Ceqaology Urban/Environmental Planning. 2021. City of Montebello Poplar Avenue Apartments – Mitigated Negative Declaration.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
15 of 19
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 17 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 18 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA.

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present.

Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.

Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.

Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building.

Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index.

Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.

Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California.

Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.
2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987.

Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.

Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984.

Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).

Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.

Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR).

Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.

Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations.

Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.

Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980.

Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.
3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director.

Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.

Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists

SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993.

Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.

Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. 5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.

Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.

Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.

Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.

SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.

Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters.

Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.

Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993.

Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death.

Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.
6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.

Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.

Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.

Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.

Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from ecigarettes.

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :

F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.

W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.

W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).

F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989.

F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.

R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990.

S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.

F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).

F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.

F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.

S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.

Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. 8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.

Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.

L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.

F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.

Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints 9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.

F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.

F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.

R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.

Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
10 OTHER REPORTS:

W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.

R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.

A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.

R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984.

K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a SemiConductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.
12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.

A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990.

F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.

S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998.

F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.

F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.

L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.

PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989. 14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.

"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998.

ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. 18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. 19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.

Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.
21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.

EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
February 28, 2022
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Poplar Avenue Apartments Project (SCH No. 2021110168) Dear Ms. Fuentes,
We have reviewed the Notice of Public Hearing dated February 17, 2022 (“Notice”) and the October 2021 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Poplar Avenue Apartments (“Project”) located in the City of Montebello (“City”). The proposed Project consists of two elements:

Project A and Project B. Project A proposes to construct 140 residential apartment units and 298 parking spaces on a 1.69-acre site while Project B proposes to construct 16 residential apartment units and 30 parking spaces on a 0.28-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Notice fails to adequately consider or evaluate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. As a result of our findings, the proposed Project does not qualify for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per the California Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21155.1 under the Sustainable Communities Project Exemption, and, therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality
Incorrect Reliance on PRC Section 21155.1
Regarding the proposed categorical exemption, the Notice states:
“The proposal is considered a “Project” and is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per the California Resources Code (PRC) Section 21155.1 under the Sustainable Communities Project Exemption (SCPE)” (p. 1). 2 However, according to PRC Section 21155.1:
“21155.1. If the legislative body finds, after conducting a public hearing, that a transit priority project meets all of the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b) and one of the requirements of subdivision (c), the transit priority project is declared to be a sustainable communities project and shall be exempt from this division.
(a) The transit priority project complies with all of the following environmental criteria: […] (6) The transit priority project site is not subject to any of the following: […] (C) Risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency.”1
As demonstrated above, a transit priority project can be exempt from environmental review under CEQA if the project does not pose a “[r]isk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency.” However, as demonstrated in SWAPE’s analysis below, the proposed Project poses a potentially significant health risk impact. As such, the proposed Project is not eligible for a Sustainable Communities Project Exemption (“SPCE”) per PRC Section 21155.1 and a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As previously stated, the Notice claims the Project qualifies for a SPCE per PRC Section 21155.1.

However, the proposed Project’s failure to evaluate the potential health risk impacts is incorrect for three reasons.

First, the IS/MND indicates that construction of “Project A” will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment throughout the construction period of 21 months (p. 36). Furthermore, the proposed land uses associated with Project A will generate 762 daily weekday vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 121, Table 8). However, the Notice and IS/MND fail to quantify Project-generated toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment 1 “CHAPTER 4.2. Implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy [21155 - 21155.4].” California Legislative Information Public Resources Code, June 2012, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21155.1.&lawCode=PRC. 3 Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.2 The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more.

Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in a full CEQA analysis for the Project.

Third, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the Notice and IS/MND fail to compare the Project’s combined excess health risk impact to the applicable SCAQMD numeric threshold of 10 in one million.3 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In an effort to accurately estimate Project’s construction-related and operational emissions associated with Project “A,” we utilized CalEEMod.2020.4.0, as well as the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type, and typical equipment associated with project type. As indicated by the IS/MND, we included 140 dwelling units, consisting of 170,161-SF, of “Apartments Mid Rise” in our model (p. 11-13). We also included 298 parking spaces, consisting of 124,514-SF, of “Enclosed Parking with Elevator” (p. 13). Furthermore, we included construction phase lengths, off-road construction equipment types and unit amounts, and a hauling trip number that were consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36). Finally, we assumed that the Project would be located within Climate Zone 94 and the Project’s utilities would be provided by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 5 All other values were left as default. It is important to note we only 2 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 3 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 4 “Appendix F Climate Zones Lookup.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/07_appendix-f2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.

F-14.
5 “Service Locator.” Public Works Los Angeles County, 2022, available at:
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/servicelocator/.
4 modeled emissions associated with the proposed Project A and excluded Project B. Thus, emissions estimates are underestimated and not representative of the entire Project.

In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.6 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA7 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)8 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. SWAPE’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 170 pounds of DPM over the 640-day construction period.9 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 170.2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
640 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00140 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 640-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.25 years. SWAPE’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 310 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 309.8 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
6 U.S. EPA (April 2011) AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 7 OEHHA (February 2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 8 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 9 See Attachment B for calculations. 5 Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00446 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 1.69-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 117- by 58-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The population of Montebello was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.10 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.11 According to the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are located 25 meters from the Project site (p. 57). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”) is located approximately 50 meters from the Project site. Thus, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 5.193 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.5193 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 16.58 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 1.658 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.12 Consistent with the 640-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.5 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.5 years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years).

Consistent with OEHHA guidance, as recommended by SCAQMD, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASF(s)”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.13According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 – 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance 10 “Montebello.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0648816. 11 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 12 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Rule 1200 Health Risk Assessments (HRAs).” SDAPCD, July 2019, available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD_1200_Supplemental_Guidel ines.pdf. 13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 6 with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for children from the 3rd trimester through age 2.14 Finally, consistent with SCAQMD and OEHHA guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester, infant, and child receptors, and a value of 0.73 for the adult receptors.15 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown in the tables below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions
Source
Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-day)
Cancer Risk
(without ASFs*) ASF Cancer Risk(with ASFs*)
3rd
Trimester Construction 0.25 0.5193 361 7.06E-07 10 7.06E-06 Construction 1.50 0.5193 1090 1.28E-05
Operation 0.50 1.658 1090 1.35E-05
Infant
(Age 0 - 2) Total 2 2.63E-05 10 2.63E-04
Child
(Age 2 - 16) Operation 14 1.658 572 2.00E-04 3 6.00E-04 Adult
(Age 16 - 30) Operation 14 1.658 261 6.66E-05 1 6.66E-05 Lifetime 30 2.94E-04 9.37E-04
* We, along with CARB and SCAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs.

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, are approximately 7.06, 263, 600, and 66.6 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs, is approximately 973 in one million. The infant, child, adult, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. Thus, the Project is not eligible for a SPCE per PRC Section 21155.1. 14 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines (Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act).” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab2588-risk-assessmentguidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19; see also:” Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015 guidancemanual.pdf. 15 “Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, September 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/riskassessproc-v8-

1.pdf?sfvrsn=12, p. 7.
7 Utilizing ASFs is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without ASFs are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, without ASFs, are approximately 0.706, 26.3, 200, and 66.6 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime, without ASFs, is approximately 294 in one million. The infant, child, adult, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. While we recommend the use of ASFs, the Project’s cancer risk without ASFs, as estimated by SWAPE, exceeds the SCAQMD threshold regardless. Thus, as previously stated, the Project is not eligible for a SPCE per PRC Section 21155.1.

An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Thus, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared, including a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates and mitigates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
8 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
Poplar Avenue Apartments
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND.

Land Use - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 11-13).

Construction Phase - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Left as default. No exact unit amounts provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Left as default. No exact unit amounts provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Grading - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36).

Trips and VMT - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36) (Calculated: 1,337 hauling trucks x 2 one-way trips = 2,674 total hauling truck trips).

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 298.00 Space 0.00 124,514.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 140.00 Dwelling Unit 1.69 170,161.00 400

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
691.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Attachment A

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 44.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 262.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 89.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 119,200.00 124,514.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 140,000.00 170,161.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.68 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.68 1.69
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,674.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1793 1.5102 1.6352 4.6200e0030.1337 0.0539 0.1876 0.0360 0.0512 0.0872 0.0000 415.9649 415.9649 0.0628 0.0206 423.6786 2023 0.7183 1.0879 1.5223 3.5400e0030.1593 0.0436 0.2029 0.0427 0.0422 0.0849 0.0000 311.1991 311.1991 0.0288 9.9100e003314.8722 Maximum 0.7183 1.5102 1.6352 4.6200e0030.1593 0.0539 0.2029 0.0427 0.0512 0.0872 0.0000 415.9649 415.9649 0.0628 0.0206 423.6786 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1793 1.5102 1.6352 4.6200e0030.1337 0.0539 0.1876 0.0360 0.0512 0.0872 0.0000 415.9646 415.9646 0.0628 0.0206 423.6784 2023 0.7183 1.0879 1.5223 3.5400e0030.1593 0.0436 0.2029 0.0427 0.0422 0.0849 0.0000 311.1990 311.1990 0.0288 9.9100e003314.8720 Maximum 0.7183 1.5102 1.6352 4.6200e0030.1593 0.0539 0.2029 0.0427 0.0512 0.0872 0.0000 415.9646 415.9646 0.0628 0.0206 423.6784 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.5230 0.5230
2 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.4081 0.4081
3 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.5509 0.5509
4 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.5165 0.5165
5 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5091 0.5091
6 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.4972 0.4972
7 9-1-2023 9-30-2023 0.1502 0.1502
Highest 0.5509 0.5509
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1802 0.0530 2.3369 2.3500e0030.1417 0.1417 0.1417 0.1417 14.8707 30.9421 45.8128 0.0466 1.0100e00347.2793 Energy 9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 479.3771 479.3771 0.0201 4.0000e003481.0700 Mobile 0.3843 0.4423 4.0078 8.7800e0030.9295 6.4200e0030.9359 0.2480 5.9600e0030.2539 0.0000 811.8861 811.8861 0.0556 0.0352 823.7672 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13.0726 0.0000 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8939 57.3329 60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159 Total 1.5744 0.5795 6.3806 0.0117 0.9295 0.1549 1.0844 0.2480 0.1545 0.4025 30.8371 1,379.538 2 1,410.375
4 1.1949 0.0476 1,454.419
2 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1802 0.0530 2.3369 2.3500e0030.1417 0.1417 0.1417 0.1417 14.8707 30.9421 45.8128 0.0466 1.0100e00347.2793 Energy 9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 479.3771 479.3771 0.0201 4.0000e003481.0700 Mobile 0.3843 0.4423 4.0078 8.7800e0030.9295 6.4200e0030.9359 0.2480 5.9600e0030.2539 0.0000 811.8861 811.8861 0.0556 0.0352 823.7672 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13.0726 0.0000 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8939 57.3329 60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159 Total 1.5744 0.5795 6.3806 0.0117 0.9295 0.1549 1.0844 0.2480 0.1545 0.4025 30.8371 1,379.538 2 1,410.375
4 1.1949 0.0476 1,454.419
2 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 5/1/2022 5 44
2 Grading Grading 5/1/2022 6/1/2022 5 23
3 Shoring Trenching 6/1/2022 8/1/2022 5 44
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/1/2022 8/1/2023 5 262 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/1/2023 12/1/2023 5 89 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Shoring Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
Shoring Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 344,576; Residential Outdoor: 114,859; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 7,471 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0236 0.2074 0.2782 6.1000e0048.5100e0038.5100e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 53.4836 53.4836 0.0173 0.0000 53.9160 Total 0.0236 0.2074 0.2782 6.1000e0048.5100e0038.5100e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 53.4836 53.4836 0.0173 0.0000 53.9160 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 2,674.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Shoring 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 153.00 35.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 31.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.8000e0048.2000e0040.0106 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5776 2.5776 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.6004 Total 9.8000e0048.2000e0040.0106 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5776 2.5776 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.6004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0236 0.2074 0.2782 6.1000e0048.5100e0038.5100e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 53.4835 53.4835 0.0173 0.0000 53.9160 Total 0.0236 0.2074 0.2782 6.1000e0048.5100e0038.5100e0037.8300e0037.8300e0030.0000 53.4835 53.4835 0.0173 0.0000 53.9160 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.8000e0048.2000e0040.0106 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5776 2.5776 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.6004 Total 9.8000e0048.2000e0040.0106 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5776 2.5776 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.6004 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.2600e0030.0622 0.1068 1.7000e0042.7700e0032.7700e0032.5500e0032.5500e0030.0000 14.6142 14.6142 4.7300e0030.0000 14.7323 Total 6.2600e0030.0622 0.1068 1.7000e0040.0000 2.7700e0032.7700e0030.0000 2.5500e0032.5500e0030.0000 14.6142 14.6142 4.7300e0030.0000 14.7323 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.1700e0030.2365 0.0527 8.3000e0040.0230 1.6700e0030.0247 6.3200e0031.6000e0037.9200e0030.0000 82.5818 82.5818 4.3800e0030.0131 86.5962 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9000e0043.3000e0044.2600e0031.0000e0051.2600e0031.0000e0051.2700e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 1.0364 1.0364 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.0456 Total 6.5600e0030.2368 0.0570 8.4000e0040.0243 1.6800e0030.0259 6.6500e0031.6100e0038.2600e0030.0000 83.6183 83.6183 4.4100e0030.0131 87.6418 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.2600e0030.0622 0.1068 1.7000e0042.7700e0032.7700e0032.5500e0032.5500e0030.0000 14.6141 14.6141 4.7300e0030.0000 14.7323 Total 6.2600e0030.0622 0.1068 1.7000e0040.0000 2.7700e0032.7700e0030.0000 2.5500e0032.5500e0030.0000 14.6141 14.6141 4.7300e0030.0000 14.7323 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.1700e0030.2365 0.0527 8.3000e0040.0230 1.6700e0030.0247 6.3200e0031.6000e0037.9200e0030.0000 82.5818 82.5818 4.3800e0030.0131 86.5962 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9000e0043.3000e0044.2600e0031.0000e0051.2600e0031.0000e0051.2700e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 1.0364 1.0364 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.0456 Total 6.5600e0030.2368 0.0570 8.4000e0040.0243 1.6800e0030.0259 6.6500e0031.6100e0038.2600e0030.0000 83.6183 83.6183 4.4100e0030.0131 87.6418 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0181 0.1918 0.1314 5.4000e0047.0200e0037.0200e0036.4600e0036.4600e0030.0000 47.6190 47.6190 0.0154 0.0000 48.0040 Total 0.0181 0.1918 0.1314 5.4000e0047.0200e0037.0200e0036.4600e0036.4600e0030.0000 47.6190 47.6190 0.0154 0.0000 48.0040 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e0045.0000e0046.5200e0032.0000e0051.9300e0031.0000e0051.9400e0035.1000e0041.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 1.5862 1.5862 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6002 Total 6.0000e0045.0000e0046.5200e0032.0000e0051.9300e0031.0000e0051.9400e0035.1000e0041.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 1.5862 1.5862 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6002 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0181 0.1918 0.1314 5.4000e0047.0200e0037.0200e0036.4600e0036.4600e0030.0000 47.6189 47.6189 0.0154 0.0000 48.0040 Total 0.0181 0.1918 0.1314 5.4000e0047.0200e0037.0200e0036.4600e0036.4600e0030.0000 47.6189 47.6189 0.0154 0.0000 48.0040 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e0045.0000e0046.5200e0032.0000e0051.9300e0031.0000e0051.9400e0035.1000e0041.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 1.5862 1.5862 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6002 Total 6.0000e0045.0000e0046.5200e0032.0000e0051.9300e0031.0000e0051.9400e0035.1000e0041.0000e0055.2000e0040.0000 1.5862 1.5862 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6002 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0907 0.6877 0.7000 1.2100e0030.0324 0.0324 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 99.8673 99.8673 0.0174 0.0000 100.3022 Total 0.0907 0.6877 0.7000 1.2100e0030.0324 0.0324 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 99.8673 99.8673 0.0174 0.0000 100.3022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7600e0030.0990 0.0328 3.8000e0040.0121 9.0000e0040.0130 3.5000e0038.6000e0044.3600e0030.0000 36.7594 36.7594 1.2300e0035.3000e00338.3702 Worker 0.0288 0.0240 0.3120 8.3000e0040.0922 6.0000e0040.0928 0.0245 5.5000e0040.0251 0.0000 75.8394 75.8394 2.1800e0032.0700e00376.5115 Total 0.0326 0.1230 0.3448 1.2100e0030.1043 1.5000e0030.1058 0.0280 1.4100e0030.0294 0.0000 112.5988 112.5988 3.4100e0037.3700e003114.8817 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0907 0.6877 0.7000 1.2100e0030.0324 0.0324 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 99.8672 99.8672 0.0174 0.0000 100.3020 Total 0.0907 0.6877 0.7000 1.2100e0030.0324 0.0324 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 99.8672 99.8672 0.0174 0.0000 100.3020 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7600e0030.0990 0.0328 3.8000e0040.0121 9.0000e0040.0130 3.5000e0038.6000e0044.3600e0030.0000 36.7594 36.7594 1.2300e0035.3000e00338.3702 Worker 0.0288 0.0240 0.3120 8.3000e0040.0922 6.0000e0040.0928 0.0245 5.5000e0040.0251 0.0000 75.8394 75.8394 2.1800e0032.0700e00376.5115 Total 0.0326 0.1230 0.3448 1.2100e0030.1043 1.5000e0030.1058 0.0280 1.4100e0030.0294 0.0000 112.5988 112.5988 3.4100e0037.3700e003114.8817 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1158 0.8900 0.9584 1.6800e0030.0391 0.0391 0.0378 0.0378 0.0000 138.0153 138.0153 0.0234 0.0000 138.6012 Total 0.1158 0.8900 0.9584 1.6800e0030.0391 0.0391 0.0378 0.0378 0.0000 138.0153 138.0153 0.0234 0.0000 138.6012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e0030.1072 0.0401 5.0000e0040.0168 5.1000e0040.0173 4.8400e0034.9000e0045.3300e0030.0000 48.3647 48.3647 1.6200e0036.9600e00350.4793 Worker 0.0369 0.0293 0.3962 1.1100e0030.1274 7.8000e0040.1282 0.0338 7.2000e0040.0346 0.0000 101.4245 101.4245 2.7000e0032.6400e003102.2787 Total 0.0399 0.1365 0.4363 1.6100e0030.1442 1.2900e0030.1455 0.0387 1.2100e0030.0399 0.0000 149.7892 149.7892 4.3200e0039.6000e003152.7580 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1158 0.8900 0.9584 1.6800e0030.0391 0.0391 0.0378 0.0378 0.0000 138.0152 138.0152 0.0234 0.0000 138.6011 Total 0.1158 0.8900 0.9584 1.6800e0030.0391 0.0391 0.0378 0.0378 0.0000 138.0152 138.0152 0.0234 0.0000 138.6011 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e0030.1072 0.0401 5.0000e0040.0168 5.1000e0040.0173 4.8400e0034.9000e0045.3300e0030.0000 48.3647 48.3647 1.6200e0036.9600e00350.4793 Worker 0.0369 0.0293 0.3962 1.1100e0030.1274 7.8000e0040.1282 0.0338 7.2000e0040.0346 0.0000 101.4245 101.4245 2.7000e0032.6400e003102.2787 Total 0.0399 0.1365 0.4363 1.6100e0030.1442 1.2900e0030.1455 0.0387 1.2100e0030.0399 0.0000 149.7892 149.7892 4.3200e0039.6000e003152.7580 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.5497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.5300e0030.0580 0.0806 1.3000e0043.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0030.0000 11.3620 11.3620 6.8000e0040.0000 11.3790 Total 0.5582 0.0580 0.0806 1.3000e0043.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0030.0000 11.3620 11.3620 6.8000e0040.0000 11.3790 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3800e0033.4800e0030.0470 1.3000e0040.0151 9.0000e0050.0152 4.0100e0039.0000e0054.1000e0030.0000 12.0326 12.0326 3.2000e0043.1000e00412.1339 Total 4.3800e0033.4800e0030.0470 1.3000e0040.0151 9.0000e0050.0152 4.0100e0039.0000e0054.1000e0030.0000 12.0326 12.0326 3.2000e0043.1000e00412.1339 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.5497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.5300e0030.0580 0.0806 1.3000e0043.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0030.0000 11.3620 11.3620 6.8000e0040.0000 11.3790 Total 0.5582 0.0580 0.0806 1.3000e0043.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0033.1500e0030.0000 11.3620 11.3620 6.8000e0040.0000 11.3790 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3800e0033.4800e0030.0470 1.3000e0040.0151 9.0000e0050.0152 4.0100e0039.0000e0054.1000e0030.0000 12.0326 12.0326 3.2000e0043.1000e00412.1339 Total 4.3800e0033.4800e0030.0470 1.3000e0040.0151 9.0000e0050.0152 4.0100e0039.0000e0054.1000e0030.0000 12.0326 12.0326 3.2000e0043.1000e00412.1339 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3843 0.4423 4.0078 8.7800e0030.9295 6.4200e0030.9359 0.2480 5.9600e0030.2539 0.0000 811.8861 811.8861 0.0556 0.0352 823.7672 Unmitigated 0.3843 0.4423 4.0078 8.7800e0030.9295 6.4200e0030.9359 0.2480 5.9600e0030.2539 0.0000 811.8861 811.8861 0.0556 0.0352 823.7672

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 761.60 687.40 572.60 2,474,018 2,474,018 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 761.60 687.40 572.60 2,474,018 2,474,018
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.542464 0.063735 0.188241 0.126899 0.023249 0.006239 0.010717 0.008079 0.000923 0.000604 0.024795 0.000702 0.003352 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.542464 0.063735 0.188241 0.126899 0.023249 0.006239 0.010717 0.008079 0.000923 0.000604 0.024795 0.000702 0.003352

5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 381.7575 381.7575 0.0182 2.2100e003382.8702 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 381.7575 381.7575 0.0182 2.2100e003382.8702 NaturalGas
Mitigated

9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 97.6196 97.6196 1.8700e0031.7900e00398.1997 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 97.6196 97.6196 1.8700e0031.7900e00398.1997

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.82932e
+006

9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 97.6196 97.6196 1.8700e0031.7900e00398.1997 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 97.6196 97.6196 1.8700e0031.7900e00398.1997 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.82932e
+006

9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 97.6196 97.6196 1.8700e0031.7900e00398.1997 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.8600e0030.0843 0.0359 5.4000e0046.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0036.8200e0030.0000 97.6196 97.6196 1.8700e0031.7900e00398.1997 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
538909 169.1511 8.0700e0039.8000e004169.6441
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
677356 212.6064 0.0101 1.2300e003213.2261
Total 381.7575 0.0182 2.2100e003382.8702
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
538909 169.1511 8.0700e0039.8000e004169.6441
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
677356 212.6064 0.0101 1.2300e003213.2261
Total 381.7575 0.0182 2.2100e003382.8702
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.1802 0.0530 2.3369 2.3500e0030.1417 0.1417 0.1417 0.1417 14.8707 30.9421 45.8128 0.0466 1.0100e00347.2793 Unmitigated 1.1802 0.0530 2.3369 2.3500e0030.1417 0.1417 0.1417 0.1417 14.8707 30.9421 45.8128 0.0466 1.0100e00347.2793 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0550 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.6229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.4586 0.0363 0.8900 2.2700e0030.1337 0.1337 0.1337 0.1337 14.8707 28.5763 43.4470 0.0444 1.0100e00344.8565 Landscaping 0.0437 0.0167 1.4470 8.0000e0058.0100e0038.0100e0038.0100e0038.0100e0030.0000 2.3658 2.3658 2.2800e0030.0000 2.4228 Total 1.1802 0.0530 2.3369 2.3500e0030.1417 0.1417 0.1417 0.1417 14.8707 30.9421 45.8128 0.0466 1.0100e00347.2793 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0550 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.6229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.4586 0.0363 0.8900 2.2700e0030.1337 0.1337 0.1337 0.1337 14.8707 28.5763 43.4470 0.0444 1.0100e00344.8565 Landscaping 0.0437 0.0167 1.4470 8.0000e0058.0100e0038.0100e0038.0100e0038.0100e0030.0000 2.3658 2.3658 2.2800e0030.0000 2.4228 Total 1.1802 0.0530 2.3369 2.3500e0030.1417 0.1417 0.1417 0.1417 14.8707 30.9421 45.8128 0.0466 1.0100e00347.2793 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159
Unmitigated 60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

9.12156 /

5.75055

60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

9.12156 /

5.75055

60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 60.2268 0.3000 7.3500e00369.9159
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869
Unmitigated 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

64.4 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

64.4 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 13.0726 0.7726 0.0000 32.3869
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 31 Date: 2/28/2022 2:15 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Poplar Avenue Apartments
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND.

Land Use - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 11-13).

Construction Phase - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Left as default. No exact unit amounts provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Left as default. No exact unit amounts provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Grading - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36).

Trips and VMT - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36) (Calculated: 1,337 hauling trucks x 2 one-way trips = 2,674 total hauling truck trips).

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 298.00 Space 0.00 124,514.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 140.00 Dwelling Unit 1.69 170,161.00 400

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
691.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 44.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 262.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 89.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 119,200.00 124,514.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 140,000.00 170,161.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.68 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.68 1.69
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,674.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.0958 34.4200 27.3860 0.1168 2.2921 0.9360 3.0664 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,233.05 93 12,233.05
93 1.7466 1.2615 12,652.66
16 2023 14.6965 14.7673 21.5924 0.0498 2.2809 0.6044 2.8853 0.6100 0.5855 1.1955 0.0000 4,824.363 1 4,824.363
1 0.4267 0.1432 4,877.717
2 Maximum 14.6965 34.4200 27.3860 0.1168 2.2921 0.9360 3.0664 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,233.05 93 12,233.05
93 1.7466 1.2615 12,652.66
16 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.0958 34.4200 27.3860 0.1168 2.2921 0.9360 3.0664 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,233.05 93 12,233.05
93 1.7466 1.2615 12,652.66
16 2023 14.6965 14.7673 21.5924 0.0498 2.2809 0.6044 2.8853 0.6100 0.5855 1.1955 0.0000 4,824.363 1 4,824.363
1 0.4267 0.1432 4,877.717
2 Maximum 14.6965 34.4200 27.3860 0.1168 2.2921 0.9360 3.0664 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,233.05 93 12,233.05
93 1.7466 1.2615 12,652.66
16 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Energy 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Mobile 2.2980 2.3338 23.4814 0.0524 5.4792 0.0371 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,344.586 1 5,344.586
1 0.3467 0.2135 5,416.877
3 Total 43.1015 5.8338 106.4509 0.2376 5.4792 10.8329 16.3121 1.4595 10.8303 12.2898 1,311.368 6 8,475.077
2 9,786.445
8 4.2889 0.3133 9,987.036
8 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Energy 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Mobile 2.2980 2.3338 23.4814 0.0524 5.4792 0.0371 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,344.586 1 5,344.586
1 0.3467 0.2135 5,416.877
3 Total 43.1015 5.8338 106.4509 0.2376 5.4792 10.8329 16.3121 1.4595 10.8303 12.2898 1,311.368 6 8,475.077
2 9,786.445
8 4.2889 0.3133 9,987.036
8 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 5/1/2022 5 44
2 Grading Grading 5/1/2022 6/1/2022 5 23
3 Shoring Trenching 6/1/2022 8/1/2022 5 44
4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/1/2022 8/1/2023 5 262 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/1/2023 12/1/2023 5 89 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Shoring Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 344,576; Residential Outdoor: 114,859; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 7,471 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Shoring Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 2,674.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Shoring 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 153.00 35.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 31.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Total 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0450 0.0328 0.5117 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 134.3475 134.3475 3.6600e0033.2500e003135.4083 Total 0.0450 0.0328 0.5117 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 134.3475 134.3475 3.6600e0033.2500e003135.4083 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 0.0000 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Total 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 0.0000 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0450 0.0328 0.5117 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 134.3475 134.3475 3.6600e0033.2500e003135.4083 Total 0.0450 0.0328 0.5117 1.3300e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 134.3475 134.3475 3.6600e0033.2500e003135.4083 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.2409 0.2409 0.2216 0.2216 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Total 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.0000 0.2409 0.2409 0.0000 0.2216 0.2216 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.5417 19.5259 4.5527 0.0723 2.0350 0.1451 2.1801 0.5579 0.1388 0.6967 7,914.756 3 7,914.756
3 0.4204 1.2558 8,299.487
8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0346 0.0253 0.3936 1.0200e0030.1118 7.2000e0040.1125 0.0296 6.6000e0040.0303 103.3442 103.3442 2.8200e0032.5000e003104.1603 Total 0.5763 19.5511 4.9463 0.0733 2.1468 0.1458 2.2926 0.5876 0.1395 0.7270 8,018.100 5 8,018.100
5 0.4232 1.2583 8,403.648
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.2409 0.2409 0.2216 0.2216 0.0000 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Total 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.0000 0.2409 0.2409 0.0000 0.2216 0.2216 0.0000 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.5417 19.5259 4.5527 0.0723 2.0350 0.1451 2.1801 0.5579 0.1388 0.6967 7,914.756 3 7,914.756
3 0.4204 1.2558 8,299.487
8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0346 0.0253 0.3936 1.0200e0030.1118 7.2000e0040.1125 0.0296 6.6000e0040.0303 103.3442 103.3442 2.8200e0032.5000e003104.1603 Total 0.5763 19.5511 4.9463 0.0733 2.1468 0.1458 2.2926 0.5876 0.1395 0.7270 8,018.100 5 8,018.100
5 0.4232 1.2583 8,403.648
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Total 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0277 0.0202 0.3149 8.2000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 82.6754 82.6754 2.2500e0032.0000e00383.3282 Total 0.0277 0.0202 0.3149 8.2000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 82.6754 82.6754 2.2500e0032.0000e00383.3282 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 0.0000 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Total 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 0.0000 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0277 0.0202 0.3149 8.2000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 82.6754 82.6754 2.2500e0032.0000e00383.3282 Total 0.0277 0.0202 0.3149 8.2000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 82.6754 82.6754 2.2500e0032.0000e00383.3282 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0689 1.7145 0.5878 6.8600e0030.2242 0.0163 0.2405 0.0646 0.0156 0.0802 736.6156 736.6156 0.0246 0.1062 768.8630 Worker 0.5294 0.3865 6.0218 0.0156 1.7102 0.0109 1.7211 0.4536 0.0101 0.4636 1,581.166 1 1,581.166
1 0.0431 0.0383 1,593.652
1 Total 0.5982 2.1009 6.6096 0.0225 1.9344 0.0273 1.9616 0.5181 0.0257 0.5438 2,317.781 7 2,317.781
7 0.0677 0.1444 2,362.515
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0689 1.7145 0.5878 6.8600e0030.2242 0.0163 0.2405 0.0646 0.0156 0.0802 736.6156 736.6156 0.0246 0.1062 768.8630 Worker 0.5294 0.3865 6.0218 0.0156 1.7102 0.0109 1.7211 0.4536 0.0101 0.4636 1,581.166 1 1,581.166
1 0.0431 0.0383 1,593.652
1 Total 0.5982 2.1009 6.6096 0.0225 1.9344 0.0273 1.9616 0.5181 0.0257 0.5438 2,317.781 7 2,317.781
7 0.0677 0.1444 2,362.515
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0403 1.3434 0.5205 6.5100e0030.2242 6.7500e0030.2309 0.0646 6.4600e0030.0710 700.9887 700.9887 0.0235 0.1008 731.6089 Worker 0.4896 0.3413 5.5294 0.0151 1.7102 0.0103 1.7205 0.4536 9.4700e0030.4630 1,530.115 3 1,530.115
3 0.0386 0.0353 1,541.602
7 Total 0.5299 1.6848 6.0499 0.0217 1.9344 0.0170 1.9514 0.5181 0.0159 0.5340 2,231.104 0 2,231.104
0 0.0621 0.1361 2,273.211
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0403 1.3434 0.5205 6.5100e0030.2242 6.7500e0030.2309 0.0646 6.4600e0030.0710 700.9887 700.9887 0.0235 0.1008 731.6089 Worker 0.4896 0.3413 5.5294 0.0151 1.7102 0.0103 1.7205 0.4536 9.4700e0030.4630 1,530.115 3 1,530.115
3 0.0386 0.0353 1,541.602
7 Total 0.5299 1.6848 6.0499 0.0217 1.9344 0.0170 1.9514 0.5181 0.0159 0.5340 2,231.104 0 2,231.104
0 0.0621 0.1361 2,273.211
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 12.3525 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 12.5441 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0992 0.0692 1.1203 3.0700e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 310.0234 310.0234 7.8200e0037.1500e003312.3509 Total 0.0992 0.0692 1.1203 3.0700e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 310.0234 310.0234 7.8200e0037.1500e003312.3509 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 12.3525 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 12.5441 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0992 0.0692 1.1203 3.0700e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 310.0234 310.0234 7.8200e0037.1500e003312.3509 Total 0.0992 0.0692 1.1203 3.0700e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 310.0234 310.0234 7.8200e0037.1500e003312.3509 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.2980 2.3338 23.4814 0.0524 5.4792 0.0371 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,344.586 1 5,344.586
1 0.3467 0.2135 5,416.877
3 Unmitigated 2.2980 2.3338 23.4814 0.0524 5.4792 0.0371 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,344.586 1 5,344.586
1 0.3467 0.2135 5,416.877
3 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 761.60 687.40 572.60 2,474,018 2,474,018 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 761.60 687.40 572.60 2,474,018 2,474,018
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.542464 0.063735 0.188241 0.126899 0.023249 0.006239 0.010717 0.008079 0.000923 0.000604 0.024795 0.000702 0.003352 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.542464 0.063735 0.188241 0.126899 0.023249 0.006239 0.010717 0.008079 0.000923 0.000604 0.024795 0.000702 0.003352

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
5011.84 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise

5.01184 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Unmitigated 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4133 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 36.6850 2.9048 71.1973 0.1816 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 1,311.368 6 2,520.000
0 3,831.368
6 3.9108 0.0890 3,955.661
3 Landscaping 0.3500 0.1333 11.5757 6.1000e0040.0641 0.0641 0.0641 0.0641 20.8625 20.8625 0.0201 21.3657 Total 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4133 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 36.6850 2.9048 71.1973 0.1816 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 1,311.368 6 2,520.000
0 3,831.368
6 3.9108 0.0890 3,955.661
3 Landscaping 0.3500 0.1333 11.5757 6.1000e0040.0641 0.0641 0.0641 0.0641 20.8625 20.8625 0.0201 21.3657 Total 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:21 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Poplar Avenue Apartments
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND.

Land Use - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 11-13).

Construction Phase - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Left as default. No exact unit amounts provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Left as default. No exact unit amounts provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with information provided in the IS/MND (p. 36).

Grading - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36).

Trips and VMT - Consistent with information provided by the IS/MND (p. 36) (Calculated: 1,337 hauling trucks x 2 one-way trips = 2,674 total hauling truck trips).

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 298.00 Space 0.00 124,514.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 140.00 Dwelling Unit 1.69 170,161.00 400

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
691.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 44.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 262.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 89.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 119,200.00 124,514.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 140,000.00 170,161.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.68 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.68 1.69
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,674.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.1342 35.2185 27.3920 0.1167 2.2921 0.9360 3.0667 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,222.81 26 12,222.81
26 1.7460 1.2623 12,642.63
90 2023 14.7389 14.8734 21.0712 0.0488 2.2809 0.6045 2.8854 0.6100 0.5855 1.1955 0.0000 4,728.537 4 4,728.537
4 0.4272 0.1464 4,782.847
4 Maximum 14.7389 35.2185 27.3920 0.1167 2.2921 0.9360 3.0667 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,222.81 26 12,222.81
26 1.7460 1.2623 12,642.63
90 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.1342 35.2185 27.3920 0.1167 2.2921 0.9360 3.0667 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,222.81 26 12,222.81
26 1.7460 1.2623 12,642.63
90 2023 14.7389 14.8734 21.0712 0.0488 2.2809 0.6045 2.8854 0.6100 0.5855 1.1955 0.0000 4,728.537 4 4,728.537
4 0.4272 0.1464 4,782.847
4 Maximum 14.7389 35.2185 27.3920 0.1167 2.2921 0.9360 3.0667 0.6261 0.8888 1.4306 0.0000 12,222.81 26 12,222.81
26 1.7460 1.2623 12,642.63
90 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Energy 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Mobile 2.2581 2.5201 22.9551 0.0502 5.4792 0.0372 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,118.184 6 5,118.184
6 0.3562 0.2229 5,193.512
1 Total 43.0616 6.0201 105.9246 0.2354 5.4792 10.8330 16.3121 1.4595 10.8303 12.2898 1,311.368 6 8,248.675
7 9,560.044
3 4.2984 0.3227 9,763.671
6 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Energy 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Mobile 2.2581 2.5201 22.9551 0.0502 5.4792 0.0372 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,118.184 6 5,118.184
6 0.3562 0.2229 5,193.512
1 Total 43.0616 6.0201 105.9246 0.2354 5.4792 10.8330 16.3121 1.4595 10.8303 12.2898 1,311.368 6 8,248.675
7 9,560.044
3 4.2984 0.3227 9,763.671
6 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 5/1/2022 5 44
2 Grading Grading 5/1/2022 6/1/2022 5 23
3 Shoring Trenching 6/1/2022 8/1/2022 5 44
4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/1/2022 8/1/2023 5 262 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/1/2023 12/1/2023 5 89 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Shoring Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 344,576; Residential Outdoor: 114,859; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 7,471 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Shoring Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 2,674.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Shoring 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 153.00 35.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 31.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Total 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0482 0.0363 0.4698 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 127.2444 127.2444 3.7000e0033.4800e003128.3729 Total 0.0482 0.0363 0.4698 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 127.2444 127.2444 3.7000e0033.4800e003128.3729 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 0.0000 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Total 1.0725 9.4249 12.6434 0.0277 0.3868 0.3868 0.3559 0.3559 0.0000 2,679.798 4 2,679.798
4 0.8667 2,701.465
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0482 0.0363 0.4698 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 127.2444 127.2444 3.7000e0033.4800e003128.3729 Total 0.0482 0.0363 0.4698 1.2600e0030.1453 9.3000e0040.1462 0.0385 8.6000e0040.0394 127.2444 127.2444 3.7000e0033.4800e003128.3729 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.2409 0.2409 0.2216 0.2216 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Total 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.0000 0.2409 0.2409 0.0000 0.2216 0.2216 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.5286 20.3183 4.6328 0.0723 2.0350 0.1454 2.1804 0.5579 0.1391 0.6970 7,917.076 5 7,917.076
5 0.4197 1.2562 8,301.912
6 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0370 0.0279 0.3614 9.7000e0040.1118 7.2000e0040.1125 0.0296 6.6000e0040.0303 97.8803 97.8803 2.8500e0032.6700e00398.7483 Total 0.5657 20.3462 4.9942 0.0732 2.1468 0.1461 2.2929 0.5876 0.1397 0.7273 8,014.956 8 8,014.956
8 0.4225 1.2589 8,400.660
9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.2409 0.2409 0.2216 0.2216 0.0000 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Total 0.5441 5.4112 9.2847 0.0145 0.0000 0.2409 0.2409 0.0000 0.2216 0.2216 0.0000 1,400.813 1 1,400.813
1 0.4531 1,412.139
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.5286 20.3183 4.6328 0.0723 2.0350 0.1454 2.1804 0.5579 0.1391 0.6970 7,917.076 5 7,917.076
5 0.4197 1.2562 8,301.912
6 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0370 0.0279 0.3614 9.7000e0040.1118 7.2000e0040.1125 0.0296 6.6000e0040.0303 97.8803 97.8803 2.8500e0032.6700e00398.7483 Total 0.5657 20.3462 4.9942 0.0732 2.1468 0.1461 2.2929 0.5876 0.1397 0.7273 8,014.956 8 8,014.956
8 0.4225 1.2589 8,400.660
9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Total 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0296 0.0223 0.2891 7.7000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 78.3043 78.3043 2.2800e0032.1400e00378.9987 Total 0.0296 0.0223 0.2891 7.7000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 78.3043 78.3043 2.2800e0032.1400e00378.9987 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Shoring - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 0.0000 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Total 0.8212 8.7171 5.9746 0.0247 0.3192 0.3192 0.2937 0.2937 0.0000 2,385.952 0 2,385.952
0 0.7717 2,405.243
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0296 0.0223 0.2891 7.7000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 78.3043 78.3043 2.2800e0032.1400e00378.9987 Total 0.0296 0.0223 0.2891 7.7000e0040.0894 5.7000e0040.0900 0.0237 5.3000e0040.0242 78.3043 78.3043 2.2800e0032.1400e00378.9987 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0681 1.7851 0.6081 6.8600e0030.2242 0.0164 0.2406 0.0646 0.0157 0.0802 736.8923 736.8923 0.0245 0.1063 769.1785 Worker 0.5667 0.4270 5.5289 0.0148 1.7102 0.0109 1.7211 0.4536 0.0101 0.4636 1,497.568 8 1,497.568
8 0.0436 0.0409 1,510.849
7 Total 0.6348 2.2121 6.1371 0.0217 1.9344 0.0273 1.9617 0.5181 0.0258 0.5439 2,234.461 2 2,234.461
2 0.0681 0.1472 2,280.028
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0681 1.7851 0.6081 6.8600e0030.2242 0.0164 0.2406 0.0646 0.0157 0.0802 736.8923 736.8923 0.0245 0.1063 769.1785 Worker 0.5667 0.4270 5.5289 0.0148 1.7102 0.0109 1.7211 0.4536 0.0101 0.4636 1,497.568 8 1,497.568
8 0.0436 0.0409 1,510.849
7 Total 0.6348 2.2121 6.1371 0.0217 1.9344 0.0273 1.9617 0.5181 0.0258 0.5439 2,234.461 2 2,234.461
2 0.0681 0.1472 2,280.028
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0389 1.4065 0.5368 6.5300e0030.2242 6.8000e0030.2310 0.0646 6.5000e0030.0711 702.1711 702.1711 0.0234 0.1011 732.8689 Worker 0.5261 0.3771 5.0824 0.0143 1.7102 0.0103 1.7205 0.4536 9.4700e0030.4630 1,449.451 0 1,449.451
0 0.0391 0.0377 1,461.668
7 Total 0.5650 1.7836 5.6192 0.0209 1.9344 0.0171 1.9515 0.5181 0.0160 0.5341 2,151.622 1 2,151.622
1 0.0625 0.1388 2,194.537
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0389 1.4065 0.5368 6.5300e0030.2242 6.8000e0030.2310 0.0646 6.5000e0030.0711 702.1711 702.1711 0.0234 0.1011 732.8689 Worker 0.5261 0.3771 5.0824 0.0143 1.7102 0.0103 1.7205 0.4536 9.4700e0030.4630 1,449.451 0 1,449.451
0 0.0391 0.0377 1,461.668
7 Total 0.5650 1.7836 5.6192 0.0209 1.9344 0.0171 1.9515 0.5181 0.0160 0.5341 2,151.622 1 2,151.622
1 0.0625 0.1388 2,194.537
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 12.3525 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 12.5441 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1066 0.0764 1.0298 2.9100e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 293.6796 293.6796 7.9200e0037.6400e003296.1551 Total 0.1066 0.0764 1.0298 2.9100e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 293.6796 293.6796 7.9200e0037.6400e003296.1551 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 12.3525 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 12.5441 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1066 0.0764 1.0298 2.9100e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 293.6796 293.6796 7.9200e0037.6400e003296.1551 Total 0.1066 0.0764 1.0298 2.9100e0030.3465 2.0800e0030.3486 0.0919 1.9200e0030.0938 293.6796 293.6796 7.9200e0037.6400e003296.1551 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.2581 2.5201 22.9551 0.0502 5.4792 0.0372 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,118.184 6 5,118.184
6 0.3562 0.2229 5,193.512
1 Unmitigated 2.2581 2.5201 22.9551 0.0502 5.4792 0.0372 5.5163 1.4595 0.0345 1.4940 5,118.184 6 5,118.184
6 0.3562 0.2229 5,193.512
1 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 761.60 687.40 572.60 2,474,018 2,474,018 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 761.60 687.40 572.60 2,474,018 2,474,018
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.542464 0.063735 0.188241 0.126899 0.023249 0.006239 0.010717 0.008079 0.000923 0.000604 0.024795 0.000702 0.003352 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.542464 0.063735 0.188241 0.126899 0.023249 0.006239 0.010717 0.008079 0.000923 0.000604 0.024795 0.000702 0.003352

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
5011.84 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise

5.01184 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0541 0.4619 0.1965 2.9500e0030.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 589.6286 589.6286 0.0113 0.0108 593.1324 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Unmitigated 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4133 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 36.6850 2.9048 71.1973 0.1816 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 1,311.368 6 2,520.000
0 3,831.368
6 3.9108 0.0890 3,955.661
3 Landscaping 0.3500 0.1333 11.5757 6.1000e0040.0641 0.0641 0.0641 0.0641 20.8625 20.8625 0.0201 21.3657 Total 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4133 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 36.6850 2.9048 71.1973 0.1816 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 10.6944 1,311.368 6 2,520.000
0 3,831.368
6 3.9108 0.0890 3,955.661
3 Landscaping 0.3500 0.1333 11.5757 6.1000e0040.0641 0.0641 0.0641 0.0641 20.8625 20.8625 0.0201 21.3657 Total 40.7495 3.0381 82.7730 0.1822 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 10.7585 1,311.368 6 2,540.862
5 3,852.231
1 3.9309 0.0890 3,977.027
0 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 2/28/2022 2:22 PM Poplar Avenue Apartments - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0539 Total DPM (lbs) 170.1687671 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.1549 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.295342466 Total DPM (g) 77188.55277 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.848767123 Construction Duration (days) 306 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001395916 Total DPM (lbs) 309.8 Total DPM (lbs) 90.37479452 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.004456027 Total DPM (g) 40994.00679 Total Acreage 1.69 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 3/1/2022 Max Horizontal (meters) 116.95 Total Acreage 1.69 End Date 1/1/2023 Min Horizontal (meters) 58.48 Max Horizontal (meters) 116.95 Construction Days 306 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 58.48 Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0436 Population 62,640 Setting Urban Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.23890411 Start Date 3/1/2022 Population 62,640 Construction Duration (days) 334 End Date 12/1/2023
Total DPM (lbs) 79.7939726 Total Construction Days 640
Total DPM (g) 36194.54597 Total Years of Construction 1.75 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Operation 28.25
End Date 12/1/2023
Construction Days 334
2022
Construction Operation
2021 Total Emission Rate
Attachment B
Start date and time  02/28/22 15:31:10
AERSCREEN 21112
Poplar Avenue Project A Construction
Poplar Avenue Project A Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ METRIC              ENGLISH
** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate:    0.140E‐02 g/s 0.111E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length:  116.95 meters 383.69 feet
Area Source Width:    58.48 meters 191.86 feet
Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 62640
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment C
No Building Downwash Parameters

** TERRAIN DATA **

No Terrain Elevations

Source Base Elevation:   0.0 meters        0.0  feet

Probe distance:   5000. meters       16404. feet

No flagpole receptors

No discrete receptors used

** FUMIGATION DATA **

No fumigation requested

** METEOROLOGY DATA **

Min/Max Temperature:  250.0 / 310.0 K   ‐9.7 /  98.3 Deg F

Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s

Anemometer Height:   10.000 meters

Dominant Surface Profile: Urban

Dominant Climate Type:    Average Moisture

Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted

DEBUG OPTION ON

AERSCREEN output file:

2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction.out

*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin

No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run

**************************************************

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET

Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture

Season             Albedo     Bo       zo

Winter              0.35     1.50     1.000

Spring              0.14     1.00     1.000

Summer              0.16     2.00     1.000

Autumn              0.18     2.00     1.000

Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl

Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe

FLOWSECTOR   started 02/28/22 15:32:34

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Spring

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Summer

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Autumn

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

FLOWSECTOR   ended 02/28/22 15:32:43

REFINE       started 02/28/22 15:32:43

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

REFINE       ended 02/28/22 15:32:44

**********************************************

AERSCREEN Finished Successfully

With no errors or warnings

Check log file for details

***********************************************

Ending date and time  02/28/22 15:32:52

file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT

0.39666E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46463E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51932E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.53478E+01 59.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41310E+01 75.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26422E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19442E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15128E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12237E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10193E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.86760E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.75083E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65983E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58541E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52477E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47450E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43177E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39542E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36397E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33671E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31275E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29150E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27268E+00 525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25588E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24084E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22729E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21500E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20380E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19358E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18418E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17553E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16757E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16023E+00 775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15342E+00 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14711E+00 825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14123E+00 850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13575E+00 875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13064E+00 900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12585E+00 925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12136E+00 950.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11713E+00 975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11316E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10943E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10590E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10257E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99968E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.96930E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.94049E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91314E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.88713E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.86238E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83880E-01 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81631E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.79486E-01 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77435E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.75475E-01 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73599E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.71802E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70080E-01 1425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68429E-01 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66843E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65320E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63856E-01 1525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62449E-01 1550.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61094E-01 1575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59789E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58532E-01 1625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57319E-01 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56150E-01 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55021E-01 1700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53931E-01 1725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52878E-01 1750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51860E-01 1775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50876E-01 1800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49923E-01 1824.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49001E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48108E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47243E-01 1899.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46404E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45591E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44802E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44037E-01 2000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43294E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42572E-01 2050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41871E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41190E-01 2100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40528E-01 2124.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39883E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39257E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38647E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38054E-01 2224.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37476E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36913E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36365E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35830E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35309E-01 2350.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34801E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34306E-01 2400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33822E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33351E-01 2449.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32890E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32441E-01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32002E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31573E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31154E-01 2575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30745E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30345E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29954E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29571E-01 2675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29197E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28831E-01 2725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28472E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28122E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27779E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27443E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27114E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26792E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26476E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26167E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25864E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25567E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25276E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24990E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24710E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24436E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24166E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23902E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23643E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23389E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23139E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22894E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22653E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22417E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22185E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21957E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21733E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21513E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21297E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21084E-01 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20876E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20670E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20468E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20270E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20075E-01 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19883E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19695E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19509E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19326E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19147E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18970E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18796E-01 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18625E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18456E-01 3775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18290E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18127E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17966E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17808E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17652E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17498E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17347E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17198E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17051E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16906E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16763E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16623E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16484E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16348E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16213E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16081E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15950E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15821E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15694E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15568E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15445E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15323E-01 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15202E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15084E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14966E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14851E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14737E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14624E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14514E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14404E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14296E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14189E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14084E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13980E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13877E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:25 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13775E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13675E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13577E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13479E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13382E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13287E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13193E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13100E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13008E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12918E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12828E-01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12740E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12652E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12566E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

Start date and time  02/28/22 15:35:34

AERSCREEN 21112

Poplar Avenue Project A Operation

Poplar Avenue Project A Operation

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

METRIC              ENGLISH

** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Emission Rate:    0.446E‐02 g/s         0.354E‐01 lb/hr

Area Height:           3.00 meters           9.84 feet

Area Source Length:  116.95 meters         383.69 feet

Area Source Width:    58.48 meters         191.86 feet

Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters           4.92 feet

Model Mode:           URBAN

Population:           62640

Dist to Ambient Air:           1.0 meters             3. feet

** BUILDING DATA **

No Building Downwash Parameters

** TERRAIN DATA **

No Terrain Elevations

Source Base Elevation:   0.0 meters        0.0  feet

Probe distance:   5000. meters       16404. feet

No flagpole receptors

No discrete receptors used

** FUMIGATION DATA **

No fumigation requested

** METEOROLOGY DATA **

Min/Max Temperature:  250.0 / 310.0 K   ‐9.7 /  98.3 Deg F

Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s

Anemometer Height:   10.000 meters

Dominant Surface Profile: Urban

Dominant Climate Type:    Average Moisture

Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted

DEBUG OPTION ON

AERSCREEN output file:

2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation.out

*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin

No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run

**************************************************

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET

Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture

Season             Albedo     Bo       zo

Winter              0.35     1.50     1.000

Spring              0.14     1.00     1.000

Summer              0.16     2.00     1.000

Autumn              0.18     2.00     1.000

Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl

Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe

FLOWSECTOR   started 02/28/22 15:36:58

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Spring

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Summer

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Autumn

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  30

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

FLOWSECTOR   ended 02/28/22 15:37:06

REFINE       started 02/28/22 15:37:06

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

REFINE       ended 02/28/22 15:37:07

**********************************************

AERSCREEN Finished Successfully

With no errors or warnings

Check log file for details

***********************************************

Ending date and time  02/28/22 15:37:09

file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT

0.12662E+02 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14831E+02 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16577E+02 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.17070E+02 59.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13186E+02 75.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84340E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62060E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48289E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39063E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32537E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27694E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23967E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21062E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18687E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16751E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15146E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13782E+01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12622E+01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11618E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10748E+01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99830E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.93047E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.87043E+00 525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81679E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76877E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72553E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68630E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65054E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61793E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58793E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56032E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53490E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51147E+00 775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48974E+00 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46958E+00 825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45082E+00 850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43334E+00 875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41700E+00 900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40172E+00 925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38738E+00 950.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37389E+00 975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36123E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34930E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33804E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32740E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31910E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30941E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30021E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29148E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28318E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27528E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26775E+00 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26057E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25372E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24718E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24092E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23493E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22920E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22370E+00 1425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21843E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21337E+00 1475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20851E+00 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20383E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19934E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19501E+00 1575.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19085E+00 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18684E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18297E+00 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17923E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17563E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17215E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16879E+00 1750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16554E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16240E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15936E+00 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15641E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15356E+00 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15080E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14812E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14553E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14301E+00 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14057E+00 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13820E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13589E+00 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13365E+00 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13148E+00 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12937E+00 2124.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12731E+00 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12531E+00 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12336E+00 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12147E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11963E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11783E+00 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11608E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11437E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11271E+00 2350.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11109E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10951E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10796E+00 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10646E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10499E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10355E+00 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10215E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10078E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99446E-01 2575.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98140E-01 2600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.96862E-01 2625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.95614E-01 2650.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.94392E-01 2675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.93198E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.92029E-01 2725.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90886E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.89767E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.88672E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.87599E-01 2825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.86549E-01 2850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.85521E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84513E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83526E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.82559E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81611E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.80681E-01 2999.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.79770E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78877E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78000E-01 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77141E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76297E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.75470E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.74658E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73861E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73078E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72310E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.71556E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70815E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70087E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.69373E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68670E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67980E-01 3400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67302E-01 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66636E-01 3450.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65981E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65337E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64704E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64081E-01 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63469E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62866E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62274E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61691E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61117E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60553E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59998E-01 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59451E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58913E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58383E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57862E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57349E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56843E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56345E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55855E-01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55372E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54896E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54427E-01 4000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53965E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53510E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53061E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52619E-01 4100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52184E-01 4125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51754E-01 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51330E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50913E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50501E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50095E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49695E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49300E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48911E-01 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48527E-01 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48148E-01 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47774E-01 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47405E-01 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47041E-01 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46682E-01 4475.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46328E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45978E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45633E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45292E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44956E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44624E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44296E-01 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.02.28_PoplarAve_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[2/28/2022 5:02:48 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43972E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43653E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43337E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43026E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42718E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42414E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42113E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41817E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41524E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41234E-01 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40948E-01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40666E-01 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40386E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40110E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment D
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.