Monterey City Council
July 16, 2024

GROUNDWATER IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF SUPPLY TO MCWD
While MCWD asserts that it will provide reclaimed water and desalination to the project, there is no evidence to support these claims. MCWD's desalination treatment plant may be permitted, but it has no source of water supply for its operation. While the EIR and the GSA assume that future demand in the Ord Community will be met by recycled water and desalinated water (See table 4.16.12), there is no evidence of this fact. No other potential potable supplies for the project have final environmental review or identified sources of funding. It is not foreseeable that any other potable ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1041, Packet Page 1369 supplies for the project will be online and producing by the time the contemplated development is approved and constructed.

MCWD’s own Urban Water Management Plan indicates that it will more than double its use of groundwater between 2015 and 2035 – yet it has not evaluated the impact of that increase on the groundwater basin.

CONTINUED GROUNDWATER PUMPING IS UNSUSTAINABLE
MCWD is in an unsustainable position; it has historically pumped groundwater from both the upper and lower aquifers. However, because seawater intrusion is adversely impacting MCWD’s wells tapping the upper aquifer, over the past five years an increasing percentage of the district’s water is being pumped from the deep aquifer. For example, six years ago, the deep aquifer accounted for about 45 percent of MCWD pumping; for the past four years that number has held at around 60 percent.

In 2017, the district pulled 2,079 acre-feet of water from the deep aquifer, accounting for 64 percent of its pumping.

The district does not mention in the WSA that of the 6,600 acre feet allocated, 5,200 must be pumped from the upper aquifer – with only 1,400 allocated from the deep-aquifer water. MCWD is currently pumping most of its water supply from the lower aquifer.

The EIR did not address the impact to the upper aquifer from seawater intrusion from pumping these additional amount from the upper aquifer. This analysis is crucial, because if increased pumping from the upper aquifer adversely impacts seawater intrusion, the “allocation” is not available. The “allocation” to MCWD under the Fort Ord Reuse Plan is conditioned upon no adverse impact on seawater intrusion. Evidence since the “allocation” was made confirm that the chloride contour liens in Fort Ord area have not remained stable but instead moved significantly further inland relative to 1997 conditions. MCWD has not undertaken any study of seawater intrusion since 1997 to determine if the allocation conditions are being met.

Concerns with the deep aquifer is recognized by the Monterey County Resources Agency, whose scientists recommended a moratorium on new well in the Dep Aquifer because of its concerns about seawater intrusion and harm to the deep aquifer. Recommendations to Address the Expansion of Seawater Intrusion in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin October 2017, Monterey County Resources Agency.

AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE PROPOSED PROJECT’S POTABLE

WATER DEMAND
The Marina Coast Water District (the “District”) originally prepared and adopted a Water Supply Assessment in 2018 (the “Original WSA”), which concluded that the District’s “currently projected water supplies will not be sufficient to meet the projected ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1042, Packet Page 1370 annual water demands of existing and previously approved uses and the implementation of the Campus Town Specific Plan during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years.”10 To wit:
“The Project will add approximately 487.4 acre-feet per year (AFY) of new demand to the District’s Ord Community Service Area, within the City of Seaside. The City has an existing allocation of Salinas Valley Groundwater of 1,012 AFY and has previously suballocated 825.7 AFY to other projects, leaving 186.3 AFY available.

If the City sub-allocates all of this supply to the Campus Town Specific Plan Area, there will still be a resulting shortfall of 301.1 AFY.

The District can supply water to an initial phase of the project, up to the amount sub-allocated by the City.”

The District has two planned water supply projects it intends to implement in the next decade, the Recycled Water Project and the Desalination Project. These two projects are intended to develop 2,400 AFY of new supply for the Ord Community. As these projects come on-line, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority will allocate the supply among the Land Use Jurisdictions in the Ord Community. At that time, additional phases of the development may be approved.”11
In 2019, the City prepared an Updated Water Supply Assessment (the “City’s WSA”) in the form of an Errata to the Original WSA, in order to “clarify the text of the prior WSA and to correct several minor errors.”12 It is the City’s WSA upon which the DEIR relies. The City’s WSA attempts to obscure the Original WSA’s determination of a 311.08 AFY potable water shortfall by identifying “several potential plans that, if implemented, would afford sufficient potable water for the Project’s demands” (emphasis added). Id. at pg. 8. These potential plans take the form of several in-lieu storage and offset programs intended to redistribute previously allocated potable water supplies to the Project. In doing so, the City’s WSA attempts to perform a proverbial ‘bait and switch’, taking potable water that was previously allocated to other entitled projects and redistributing it in order to meet Project demand. Specifically, the DEIR states:
“To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.64 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 AFY of available potable water supply, several in-lieu storage and offset programs have been identified. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been proposed to address the 260.03 AFY potable water supply shortfall.”
DEIR at 4.16-22.
10 Pg. 7 of The District’s original Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”), which is contained in Exhibit M2 to the DEIR
11 Id.
12 Page 9 of the Updated WSA, attached to the DEIR as Exhibit M1.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1043, Packet Page 1371 Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 goes on to identify three previously-approved projects with potable water entitlements that would be subject to the offset program: Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses, for which a minimum of 311.08 AFY of existing potable water allocation would be replaced with recycled water through an in-lieu storage and recovery program; Seaside Highlands and Soper Field, for which a recycled water substitution program would offset an already allocated 53.1 AFY of potable water use; the Main Gate project, which would be forced to use 42.99 AFY of recycled water inlieu of its previously allocated potable water supply.” It is only through the implementation of these redistribution programs that “total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection would meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project.” DEIR at 4.16-22.

MITIGATION MEASURE UTIL-1 DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EFFECTIVE MITIGATION The DEIR asserts that “Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require the City to implement programs to offset potable supply with recycled water, thereby making potable supplies available for the demands of the Proposed Project…with [this] mitigation, impacts related to water supply sufficiency would be less than significant.” The lack of certainty surrounding the ability of the City to implement such a scheme is legally inadequate in light of CEQA’s informational mandate, as “the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of decisions before they are made” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123).

Perhaps more importantly, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 does not represent an effective means of mitigation. It merely attempts to redistribute potable water from previously approved projects with an existing allocation in favor of recycled water produced by a Phase 1 Recycled Water Project that is expected to be available at some point in the future.13
The question as to whether the City of Seaside even has the authority to replace previously allocated potable water with recycled water is never addressed, and the DEIR’s discussion regarding the uncertainty of potable water is inadequate. As mentioned above, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 “would require the previously approved Main-Gate project to utilize 42.99 AFY of recycled water in-lieu of previously allocated potable water supply.” DEIR at 4.16-22 (underline added).

The DEIR simply accepts that this maneuver will occur without any evidence to support it. It is well settled that “the future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 13 The DEIR indicates that the Phase 1 Recycled Water Project is expected to be available in 2019, and “once operational, potable water use that is replaced with recycled water may be reallocated to new projects.” 4.16-22.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1044, Packet Page 1372 432). Moreover, the “EIR’s discussion must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s availability” (Id.). Merely stating that potable water will be re-allocated from an entitled development project does not meet this standard.

The DEIR pays short shrift to the lack of a definite potable water supply and attempts to cure it by simply stating that “the City would be required to demonstrate that sufficient water supplies have been secured prior to issuance of a final map.” However, the holding in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment v.

County of Los Angeles, (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, directly addresses this flawed approach: “nor is the inadequacy cured by the requirement that Newhall demonstrate an adequate supply of water before the tract map is recorded. An EIR’s purpose is to inform. This purpose is not satisfied by simply stating that information will be provided in the future”. (Underline added.) In relying on the defective requirement that the City simply demonstrate sufficient water supplies prior to issuance of a final map, the DEIR defers mitigation of water supply impacts to an unknown future date, and thus fails to provide sufficient information on the reliability of potable water supplies - “water is way too important to receive such cursory treatment.”14

OVERDRAFT OF THE AQUIFER CONDITION WAS NOT SUFFICINTLY ADDRESSED IN THE DEIR In light of the overdrafted condition of the aquifer and the continued seawater intrusion, any increase in projected water use would constitute a substantial change in the project that requires further analysis. Furthermore, the worsening overdraft and seawater intrusion since the 2008 is underreported and evaluated.

In 2001, the Army assigned its interest in Fort Ord groundwater production to FORA and MCWD, reserving 1,749 AFY for its own use. Since then, based on that assignment, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, Marina Coast Water District, and the local land use jurisdictions that are members of FORA have assumed that they may pump up to 6,600 AFY from the former Fort Ord indefinitely to support Army operations and civilian reuse, regardless of the environmental impact of this pumping. Indeed, these agencies have assumed that their only obligation to provide a water supply is to build additional capacity when groundwater pumping for Fort Ord reaches the assumed indefinite supply level of 6,600 AFY.

Committee does not believe that the 1993 agreement between the Army and MCWRA, or any subsequent assignment of the Army’s interest in that agreement, created a “water right,” much less a permanent right to pump groundwater regardless of impact on the aquifer.

14 Id. at 723.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1045, Packet Page 1373 More to the point with respect to the City’s CEQA obligations, the City must prepare an SEIR due to changes in the project and due to significant new circumstances and information, including:

• the substantial and accelerating increase in sea water intrusion; • the unforeseen failure of local agencies to implement the assumed replacement water supply;
• the unforeseen decision by local agencies to treat MCWRA’s agreement to permit the short-term use of 6,600 afy as a permanent “water right;” and,
• the imminent termination of FORA, which will end its
management and allocation of groundwater, leaving MCWD with unfettered discretion as to groundwater pumping.

Relevant documents to support this argument have been previously submitted by LandWatch to the City.

THE DEIR did not Sufficiently Evaluate and Address Environmental Effects from Pumping A. The 1993 Army/MCWRA Annexation Agreement permitted the Army to continue groundwater pumping pending completion of a replacement water supply that was expected by 1999.

In 1993, the United States Army, planning to dispose of property in Fort Ord, entered into the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Concerning Annexation of Fort Ord Into Zones 2 and 2A of the Monterey County Water Resource Agency. (Agreement No. A-06404 between U.S.A. and MCWRA, Sept 21, 1993 [“1993 Army/MCWRA Annexation Agreement”].) In that agreement, the Army sought annexation of Fort Ord into MCWRA Zones 2 and 2A, the benefit assessment areas for the Nacimiento and San Antonio reservoirs. The agreement required that the Army pay MCWRA $7,400,000 and that MCWRA develop a project to provide at least 6,600 AFY of long-term potable water supply because “stopping all pumping from the Salinas Basin on Fort Ord lands is necessary to mitigate seawater intrusion.” Until that project was implemented, MCWRA agreed that the Army or its successors in interest could withdraw 6,600 AFY with a maximum of 5,200 AFY from the 180-foot and 400-foot Aquifers.

The 1993 Army/MCWRA Annexation Agreement contemplated a 6,600 AFY potable water supply replacement project by 2000. Thus, it provided that the Army could terminate the agreement if MCWRA had not made reasonable progress by December 31, 1999 on that project. Although MCWRA has not developed the 6,600 AFY potable water project, the Army did not terminate the agreement.

B. In 2001, the Army assigned a portion of its groundwater interest to MCWD, reserving 1,729 AFY for its own use.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1046, Packet Page 1374 In 1998, FORA and MCWD entered into the Water/Wastewater Facilities Agreement, in which FORA agreed to permit MCWD to acquire the Fort Ord water distribution system from the Army and MCWD agreed to provide water under FORA’s supervision and oversight. In the 1998 Water/Wastewater Facilities Agreement, FORA retained primary authority over the Ord community water supply management, including authority to administer groundwater supply capacity rights consistent with the 1993 Army/MCWRA Annexation Agreement, to determine what additional facilities are necessary, to approve capital spending budgets, and to oversee MCWD’s operations through a FORA staff Water/Wastewater Oversight Committee. The 1998 Facilities Agreement reaffirms MCWD’s earlier commitment not to pump more than 1,400 AFY from the Deep Aquifer for use on Fort Ord.

In June 2000, the Army and FORA entered a Memorandum of Agreement for disposal of the Army’s interests in Fort Ord. In 2001, consistent with that agreement and the provisions of the FORA/MCWD 1998 Water/Wastewater Facilities Agreement, the Army through FORA granted the Fort Ord waters supply infrastructure facilities to MCWD in the Assignments Of Easements On Former Fort Ord and Ord Military Community, County of Monterey, And Quitclaim Deed For Water And Wastewater Systems.

This Assignment requires MCWD to assume and comply with the terms and conditions of the 2001 conveyance of the water systems from the Army to FORA in the Easement to FORA for Water And Wastewater Distribution Systems Located On Former Fort Ord, including the obligation “to cooperate and coordinate with parcel recipients, MCWRA, FORA, MCWD, and others to ensure that all owners of property at the former Fort will continue to be provided an equitable supply of water at equitable rates.” The meaning of “equitable supply” is not defined. Critically, there is no assurance that the equitable considerations will take into account the environmental impacts of providing that supply.

When the Army conveyed its interest in the Fort Ord property, it assigned its interest in groundwater under the 1993 Army/MCWRA Annexation Agreement to MCWD, reserving 1,729 AFY of water exclusively for the Federal Government use. (MOA between Army and FORA, June 20, 2000, Article 5.) The Army has apparently subsequently conveyed some portion of this reserved interest to others, because the Fort Ord Reuse Authority reports that the Army now retains an interest of only 1,577 afy. (FORA, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2017-2018, p. 12, available at https://www.fora.org/Reports/AR/AnnualReport2018-Full.pdf.) FORA reports that the Army consumed 460.45 AFY in 2017, and that it has a remaining 1,116.55 AFY “allocation.” (Ibid.) It is this unused “allocation” that that the Army may seek to convey to local agencies.

C. Prior Army environmental review of Fort Ord reuse acknowledges that the right to pump groundwater for Fort Ord is limited in time and that a replacement water supply is required to support civilian reuse of Fort Ord.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1047, Packet Page 1375 To evaluate the impacts, mitigation, and alternatives for the disposal and likely civilian reuse of Fort Ord, the Army prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1993 and a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) in 1996.

1. 1993 EIS assumes mitigation for civilian reuse will include a replacement water supply. The 1993 EIS acknowledges that water demand for civilian reuse will exceed existing water use, “which already exceeds safe yield of the groundwater system in the vicinity of Fort Ord.” (1993 SEIS, p. 6-56.) The EIS concludes that “[i]f the increase were supplied by local wells, seawater intrusion would be accelerated.” (Ibid.) The EIS recommends as non-Army responsibility mitigation for the reuse scenarios in the 1993 EIS that the local civilian agencies “Increase Water Supply or Decrease Total Water Demand to Achieve a Balance.” (1993 ROD, pp. 8, 10; 1993 EIS, pp. 6-57 to 6-59.) The 1993 EIR identifies several proposed water projects to supply potable water for reuse, including the Salinas Valley Water Transfer project, which would have piped wellwater from the Arroyo Seco cone to coastal areas; desalination of brackish water; a new dam on the Arroyo Seco; and new reservoirs on the Fort Ord site. (1993 EIR, pp. 6- 57 to 6-58.) None of these projects has been completed or are now being planned.

Reflecting the analysis in the 1993 EIS, the 1993 Record of Decision states that “implementation of the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan will be contingent upon the provision of a long-term, reliable potable water system.” (1993 ROD, p. 15.) The 1993 ROD identifies under the heading “Local Commitment to Mitigation Measures” those mitigation measures that the “community has indicated it will implement.” (1993 ROD, p. 14.) The community commitment to water supply mitigation recited in the Record of Decision includes provision of a replacement water supply through a 9,000 AFY desalination project and/or the 11,000 AFY Salinas Valley Water Transfer Project:

Water Supply Mitigation Measures. The implementation of the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan will be contingent upon the provision of a long-term, reliable potable water system. All development will be phased based upon the following framework for water availability that was approved in a memorandum of understanding between the Army and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. The initial phases of the plan will have approximately 6,600 acre-feet available for the POM annex, the Army Reserve Center, McKinney Act users, the California State University, and other uses, based on water availability and approved by the Fort Ord reuse group (FORG). Latter stages of development will make use of desalination, approximately 9,000 acre-feet and water recycling, approximately 9, 000 acrefeet. Water supplies beyond the year 2000 could be augmented by additional development or substitute for those above based on the availability of 11,000 acre-feet of water from the Salinas Valley Water Transfer Project, which is part of the Sea Water Intrusion Program. (1993 ROD, p. 15.) Again, twenty five years later, neither the desalination project for the Fort Ord area nor the Salinas Valley Water Transfer Project has been implemented.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1048, Packet Page 1376

2. The 1996 SEIS acknowledges that there is no right to pump the 6,600 afy of groundwater if it causes seawater intrusion and that civilian reuse requires a replacement water supply.

The Record of Decision for the 1996 SEIS explains that supplemental environmental review was intended to evaluate changed conditions, which then included the conveyance of additional assets in excess of the Army’s needs and the completion of the Base Reuse Plan. (1996 ROD, p. 1.) The 1996 SEIS acknowledges that “[t]he water demand for Alternative 7 (with or without the newly excessed lands and revised use areas) would be large enough to result in seawater intrusion if it is supplied by local wells.” (SEIS, p. 5-20.) Alternative 7 is the alternative that reflects reuse according to the Base Reuse Plan.

The 1996 SEIS acknowledges that its 1993 agreement with MCWRA allows it to “pump up to 6,600 af/yr from its existing wells to meet Army water demands, provided the pumping does not result in seawater intrusion.” (SEIS, p. 5-20, emphasis added.) In short, the 1996 SEIS assumed that any continued use of the 6,600 AFY interest in groundwater pumping was contingent on halting seawater intrusion.

The 1996 SEIS states that the water supply for reuse must come from new water supply projects:

The great majority of the water demand for Alternative 7 derives from civilian reuse of former Fort Ord lands. These users will need to cooperate with MCWRA in developing new water supply projects or develop their own water supplies from other sources (e.g., desalination).

(1996 SEIR, p. 5-20.)
The 1996 SEIS states that the member agencies of the Fort Ord Reuse Group had entered into a Mitigation Agreement in 1994 that provides that “[t]he reuse of former Fort Ord lands will be planned and implemented in coordination with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) and other appropriate agencies to ensure adequate water supplies for all reuse areas.” (SEIS, p. 3-11.)

In its discussion of cumulative water supply impacts, the 1996 SEIS again states that the 1994 Mitigation Agreement requires the civilian agencies to develop alternative water supplies to support phased future development, because the 1993 Agreement between the Army and MCWRA requires that groundwater pumping cease:

3. The Army’s 1996 Record of Decision recognizes the MCWD water supply allocations are based only on the “short-term” use of groundwater.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1049, Packet Page 1377 After quoting the SEIS language regarding the 1994 Mitigation Agreement by the Fort Ord Working Group, the 1996 Record of Decision acknowledges that the FORA water supply allocation is based only on the short-term water supply available under the 1993 Annexation Agreement. FORA has developed and coordinated a water allocation plan for reuse based on the short-term water supply available as a result of the Army/MCWRA agreement. (1996 ROD, Table 3, p. 1.)
D. Overdraft and seawater intrusion have continued and accelerated in the 180foot and 400-foot Aquifer Subbasin, and the Deep Aquifer is being depleted.

Previously, another organization concerned about excess pumping the adverse consequences, LandWatch, engaged hydrologist Timothy Parker to evaluate water supply impact analyses for two recent projects proposed in the Ord Community. Parker is a Certified Engineering Geologist and Certified Hydrogeologist, with over 25 years of geologic and hydrologic professional experience. Parker served as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee to MCWRA in its study of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin mandated by Policy PS-3.1 of the 2010 Monterey County General Plan.

Parker explains and documents that overdraft conditions in the 180-foot and 400foot Aquifer Subbasin have persisted since the time of the Army’s 1993 EIS and 1997 SEIS. The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin still remains out of hydrological balance by 17,000 to 24,000 afy. (Parker 2016, p. 2.) As Parker explains, efforts to halt seawater intrusion have not succeeded; and, by 2016, seawater intrusion had advanced more than five miles further inland compared to conditions in the 1990s. (Id., pp. 2-4.) The most recent mapping of seawater intrusion from 2017 shows even more dramatic acceleration of seawater intruded areas, which have occurred despite reductions in MCWD pumping during the 2006-2015 period. (Parker 2018, p. 1.)

Parker also explains that since 2003, as seawater has intruded the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers in the coastal area, pumping has been substantially shifted to the Deep Aquifer, upsetting any potential equilibrium in the Deep Aquifer. (Parker 2016, pp. 1516.) Thus, increased pumping of the Deep Aquifer to supply water for Fort Ord development will deplete that aquifer and may induce further seawater intrusion. (Ibid.) In light of the continuing advance of seawater intrusion, MCWRA staff have recommended a moratorium on new wells in the Pressure 400-Foot Aquifer within an “Area of Impact” proximate to the 500 mg/l Chloride front. MCWRA also recommended a moratorium on new wells within the entirety of the Deep Aquifers of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin pending investigation of its viability as a source of water. Under these circumstances, Parker concludes that any increase in pumping from the MCWD production wells serving the Ord Community would aggravate seawater intrusion. (Parker 2018, p. 2.)
For the reasons presented herein the Committee opposes the development project. Based upon the analysis presented in this letter, together with other comments and testimony regarding the DEIR the Committee respectfully request the City of ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1050, Packet Page 1378 Seaside refuse to certify the EIR and instead require a substantial rewriting of major sections of the document.

Very truly yours,
STEVEN A. HERUM
Attorney-at-Law
SAH:lac
Enc.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1051, Packet Page 1379 Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1052, Packet Page 1380 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1053, Packet Page 1381 , .

Chapter 38
Air Quality
Introduction
TIlls section describesthe setting and potential air quality impacts of the proposed land develoPl1)ent project laJown as Go.ford Village, located in the western part of the City of Bakersfield. Specifically, it focuses on the relationShip between topography and climate, discusses federal and state ambient air quality standards and existing air qualjty conditions in the proposed project area, describes the overall regulatory framework-for air quality management in California and the region, and identifies seositive receptors in the proposed project area. This section then identifies the potential air quality impacts of the' . proposed project and proposes mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts loless-than-significant levels. This analysis is primarily based on the Air Quality Impact Study prepared for the project by WZllnc. (2002) (Appendix C) .
. Environmental Setting
Regional Climate and Meteorology 01793
GQsIord Village
DraftElR
The proposed project site is located in Kern County, and lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJV AB). The SJV AB includes a portion of Kern County and all of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues throughout the 8-county San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. It administers air quality regulations developed at ·the federal, Sl.ale, and local levels. Federal, state, and local air quality regulations applicable to the proposed project are described below.

The SJV AB, which is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide, is the second largest ait basin in the state. The SJV AB is defmed by the Sierra Nevada mountains in the cast (8,000-14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the T,ehachapi Mountains in the south (6,OO()""8,OOO feet in elevation). The topography of the air basin includes footlulls and mountain ranges to the cast, west and south, and a relatively flat valley floor with a slight doWnward gradient to the northwest. The topography of the project area is flat at an elevation of approximately 36S"feet' " above mean sea level as shown on the U. S. Geological Survey topographical 38-1
0000848'-"gusI2002 . J&S 02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1054, Packet Page 1382 . ,
CUy of Bakersfield Chapter 3B. Air aualit~
map, Gosford,.Califomia, Quadrangle. The valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Slrairs where the San Jo~uin-Sa=ento Delta enipties into San Francisco Bay, The San Joaquin Val\ey (SJV), thus, could be considered a' "bowl" open only to the north.

The SN AB has an "inland Mediterranean" climate averaging over 260 sunny days per year. The valley floor experiences warm, <hy summers and cool, wet, winters, SlllllIl1er high temperatures often exceed 100"1', averaging in the iow 90s in the northern valley and high 90s in the south, In the entire SJV, high daily temperature readings in summer average 95"1', Over the last 30 years, tbe SJV . averaged 106 days a year at 90"1' or batter; and '10 days a year'at JOO"F or botter.

The daily summer temperature variation can be as highas 30"1'.

In winter, as the cyclonic storm track moves southward, the storm systems moving in from the Pacific Ocean bring a maritime influence to the SJV. The . high mountains to the east prcvent the cold, continental air masses of the interior from influencing the 'valleY. Winters are mild and bumid. Temperatures below .. freezing are unusual. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but highs in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low temperature is 45"1'.

Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, the region's topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. The Coastal Range hinders wlnd access into the SJV from the west. . the Tehachapis prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the high Sierra Nevada range is a sigoificaDt barrier to the east. These topographic features result in weak airflow, which becomes blocked verticaIly by high barometric pressure over the SJV. As a result, the SJV AB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Mosi of the surrounding moUntains are above the normal height ofsununcr inversion layers (1,500-3,000 feet).

Criteria Pollutants and Local Air Quality
Description of Pollutants
,0000849
Gosford Village
Draft EIR
The federal and state goveminents have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon dioxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SO,), partiCUlate matier smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM,.), and lead. Ozone and PM,. are generally considered to be "regional" pollutants, as Ibese pollutants or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutanls such as CO, NO" SO" and lead are considered to be local pollutanrs that tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM,o is considered to be a lOCalized pollutant as well as a regional poll!1tant. In the area where the proposed project is located, PM .. and ozone are of particular concern. 38-2
01794
I\IJgusl2()02
J&S022.01
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1055, Packet Page 1383 .. · .

City of Bakersfield
Gosford VJllage
Draft EIR
Chapter 3B. AIr Qualily
Ozone
Ozone is a reSRiratory"irritan~and an oxidant iliat increases susceptibiJityto_ resp.iratoryJnf~.tions and can cause§ubstantial cIamage tovegetailon arl:do!ber matCri~I~ Ozone is a severeeye;:iiose;-ilfiifiiiroiifiHifiii:il: Ozone also attacks $yllfu~iic ..;}blJer, lextiies:plants, and other materials. Ozone causes extensive ('damage to plants by leaf discoloration and cell damage. l.- ' .

Ozone is not emitted directly into !be air, but is f9rmed by a photochemical reaction in !be alinospher~ Ozon~PJ"~cursorsr·whioh include reactive organic gases (ROG) andoxides~filliQ~~!!m.QJ • .!"1'~tin the alinosphere in the I presence Of sun fight to fonn OZone. Because photochemical reaction rates I depend on !be intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily ~':a summer air pollution problem. The ozgne precursor~ROGm}!i.NQl\> are . ,l'l1l!tte~,.b2' nwilile.sources.and,bystationaf)Ylombustion equipment. ! Slate and federal standards for ozone have been set for a I-hour averaging time. I The state I-hour ozone standard is 0.09 parts per million (ppm), not to be I
, exceeded. The federal I-hour ozone standard is 0.12 ppm, notto be exceeded more than three times in any 3-year period. '
The Bakersfield California Avenue monitoring station has recorded 131 exceedances of the state ozone standard and tWo exceedances of the federal \ ozone standard dwing the three T(lost recent years for which data arc available \1 (1998-2000) (Table 3B-I).

Carbon Monoxide
CO is essentially inert to plants and materials but can have significant effecls on human health. CO is a public heaW. concern because it combines readily With hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. Effects on humans range from slight headaches to nausea to death.

Motor vehicles arc the dominant source of CO emissions in most areas. High CO levels develop primarily dnring winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions result in reduced, dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures.

State and federal CO standards have been set for both I-hour and 8-hour averaging times. The state I-hour standard is 20 ppm by volume, and the federal I-hour standard is 35 ppm. Both state and federal standards are 9 ppm for the 8- hour averaging period. 01795
The Bakersfield California Avenue monitoring station has recorded no exceedances of the state or federal CO standard during the three most recent years for which data are available (1998-2000) (Table 3B-I). 39-3
August 2002 ... 02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1056, Packet Page 1384 . '
. . . .

City of Bakersfield
Gosford Ynlage
Draft EIR
Chapter 38. AIr Qualify
Health cencems associated with suspended particulate matter fo.cus en thDse particles small eno.ugh to. reach the lungs when inhaled. 0 ~.amculates can damage hiuruu) l1~thand retardplant·growtl). Particulates also. r~duc,,-VisibiIity; an,fSoli' buildings and ether materials, and cerro.de materials.

PM,o emissions are generated by a wide variety of sources including agricultural activities, industrial emissiens, du~ suspended by vehicle traffic, and secendary aerosols fDrmed byreactiQQs in the atmo.sphere. 0
}nre state PM,. stand;"dsare 50 micrograms per cubic meter as a 24'heur !average and 20 micrograms per cubic meter as an annual geDmetric mean. The Ifederal PM,. standards are 150 micrograms per cubic meter as a 24-heur average • I and 50 micrograms per cubic m~ter as an annual arithmetic mean_ The Bakersfield California .A.venue monitoring station has recorded 324 exceedances of the state PM,. standard and nine exceedances o.fthe federal PM" standard dnring the three mest recent years fer which data are available (1998'2000) (Table 3B-I).

Existing Air Quality Conditions
The existing air quaJity conditions in the proposed project area" can be characterized by monitoring data cellected in the region. PM .. , CO, and o.zone cencentrations are measured at several no.rth bay mDtritering statio.ns. These are thc pollutants o.f greatest co.ncentration within the SJVUMCD and are the Po.llutants o.f mDst CDncern frem the pro.pDsed project. Air quality monitDring data for the last three years are presented in Table 3B-I. The closest monito.ring statio.n is IDeated al the CalifDrnia .A.venue mo.nitoring statio.n in the City of Bakersfield.
keas such as the San Joaquin Valley are classified as either attainment or 11011- attainment with respect to state and federal ambient air quality standards, These ciassifications are determined by cDmparing actual monito.red air pollutant concentratiDns to state and federal standards. The pollutants of greatest concern in this valley are oz~ne and inhalable particulate matter. As seen frDm Table 3BI, the project area has experienced violatio.ns of the state and federal ozone standards and state PM" standards during the last three years. Table 3B-l also indicates that the federal and state CO standards have no.t been exceeded.

The Stale o.f Califomia has desi,jnated the SIVUMCD as beirig in severe non0 __ -~ttainment for ezone and in nDn-attainment fDr PM, •. The SJVUMCD has -·ado.pted an air quality impro.vement plan that addresses NO. and ROGs, both of which are ezo.ne precursors and contribute to' PM, •. The plan specifies that regional air quality slaIidards for OZone and PM,. concentrations can be met thi-o.ugh the I1se Df additional sDurce cDntro.ls and trip reductio.n strategies. It also. establishes emissions budgets for transportatio.n and stationaiy so.urces. Those 38-4
01796
Augusl2D02 .... 022111
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1057, Packet Page 1385 · . . '
Table 3B-1. Ambient Air Qualily Monitoring Data from Bakersfield- California Avenue Monitoring Station PoUutant Standards 1999 2000 2001
Ozone (0,)
Maximum I-hour concenlIation (ppm) 0.116 0.125 0.129
No. Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS (I-hour) > 0.09 ppm 44 41 46
NAAQS (I·hour) >.0.12 ppm 0 1 I
Carbon Monoxlde (CO)
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 4.51 4.89 3.41
Maximum I·hour concentratiOn (ppm) 5.8 6.9 5.S
No. Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS (S-hour)?: 9.0 ppm 0 O. 0
N,AAQS (S-ho~)?: 9.0 ppm 0 0 0
CAAQS (I-hour)?: 20 ppm o· 0 0
NAAQS (I-how) 2: 35'ppm O. 0 0
ParticuJate Matter (PMIO)
Maximum 24'hour concenlIation (flglm') 143.0 140.0 190.0 2"' Iligbest 24-hour concentration (flglm') I3S.0 133.0 186.0 AveIage geometric mean concentration (l!g!m3) 40 39 43
Average arithmetic mean concentration (gg!m) 47 45 47
No. Days Standard Exceeded'
CAAQS (24-bour) > 50 "glm' 108 102 114
NAAQS (24.hourY> 150 ~gfm' 0 0 9
" Calculated exceedances based on measurements.tak:en every six days.

Source: California Air Resources Board 2002 and Environmental Protection Agency 2002 01797
O{J00852
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1058, Packet Page 1386 , -
City of Bakersfield Chapler38. AirQual11y
budgets, developed through air quality modeling, reveal how much air pollution can occur in an area before national ambient air quality standards are .violated.

The EPA has designated the SJVUAPCDas being in severe noncattainmcnt for ozone and in serious non-attainment for PM, •. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin did not attain the federal I-hour Ozone standards by November 1999; as a result, EPA redesignated lbe San Joaquin Yalley Air Basin as a severe ozone nOD' attaimnent area. Under the serious designation, lbe SJVUAPCD had until November 1999 to reach the federall·hourozone standards. The redesignation as a severe non-attaimnent area gives the SJVUAPCD more time (until 2005) to confonn to ,lbe health-liased standards. However, the redesignalion also will require that more stringent and expensive control measures be impOsed oil indUStry and will bring thousands of businesses under EPA Title J requirements.

If the SJVUAPCD fails to attain the standards l?y 2005, sanctions and a defocto growth moratoriurncould be imposed in thc air basin.

Under the severe designation, tnlnsportation control meaSl)res are no longer ·voluntary. Reasonably available tnmsportation control measures must be implemented unless a demonstration can be made that a measure is either fmancially or technologically infeasible, or would not contribute to attainment, or does not apply to a local area, Non·attainment has already forced local transportation control measures, air district controls on industrial emissions and enhanced vehicle emissions testing. Prolonged non-attainment could also result in the implementation of federal controls on interstate truck, train, and plane travel, as well as additional controls on stationary and mobile sources (Stanislaus Council of Govennnents [SlanCOGJ 2001a). "
The EPA has mandated that the SJVuAPCD submit a Severe Area Ozone Plan by May 31, 2002 (StanCOG 200ia). In addition, the SNUAPCD must adopt and implement by November IS, 2002, the six measures committed to in the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), or revise its SIP. Failure to address the nonimplementation finding within this deadline will trigger the Clean Air Act sanctions 18 months after the effective date of the October 23, 2001 ~ction. The Valley Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RITAs) are already in the process of evaluating tnmsportation control measures for the SIP development process in response to the severe nonattainment status. At present, applicable SIPs submitted to and approved by EPA include ozone (under a serious classification) and CO (a maintenance plan) .. Approved motor vehicle emission budgets for volatile prganic compounds (VOCs), NO", and CO are in place. TI,e EPA has found the submitted PM,. plan budgets to be inadequate (which included PM,o, YOC, and NOx) (StanCOG 200Ib).

Sensitive Land Uses 01798
Gosford Village
Draft EIR
Sensitive land uses are generally defmed as locations where people reside or where the presence of air emissions could adversely affect the use of the land.

Typical sensitive receptors include residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.·
38-5
OG00853
AU9ust 2002 . J&S 02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1059, Packet Page 1387 . -
:";1
i'.j
i
,
J ;.: ~ I
. ,- '~'.
; .-
.. City of Bakersfleld Chapter 3B. Air Quanly
Sensitive land uses in ·the vicinity of the project area include:
.• the "Campus Park" single-family residential subdivision located northoftbe project site aCToss Pacheco Road and adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks; .
• the "Silver Creek" single·family·residential subdivision localed east of the -projeci site across Gosford Road;
• Reimer's Garden Centerplanl nursery localed easl ofth. projec~ site al the southeast comer of Gosford Road and Pacheco Road; and
• Sing Llim School, which is located wesl on 4600 Chaney Lane, approximately O.2S-mile from the projecl site.

Applicable· Regulations
Both the State of California and the federal government have established ambient air quality standards for several d{fferent pollutants. For. some pollutants, separate stimdards have been set for.different periods. Most standards have been set to proteet public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or-avoidance of nuisance conditions). The pollutants of greatest concern in the Bakersfield area are CO, ozone, and PM". Table 3B-2 shows the state and federal standards for a variety of pollutants ..

Federal Regulations
.,0000854 .' - .' ,
Gosford Village
OmftEIR
Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act, promulgated in 1970 and amended twice thereafter (including the 1990 amendment), estabJishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The Act directs the EPA to·establish ambient air standards for six pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulphur dioxide. The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards; the former are set to protect human health within an . ade.quate margin of safety and the latter to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life.

The primary legislation that governs federal air quality regulations is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The CAAA delegates primary responsibility for clean air io the EPA. The EPA develops rules and regulations. to preserve and improve air quality, as well as delegating specific responsibilities to state and local agencies.

The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants (fable 3B·2). Criteria pollutants include CO, NO" SO" ozone, PM,o, and lead.
01799
August 2002
J&Stt2201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1060, Packet Page 1388 Table 3B·2. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards pollutant
Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Avetaging Time
8 hOllIS
I hour
8 hours
I how
Annual average
I hour
Annual average
24ho=
IhollI
Particulate Matter (PM .. ) Annual arithmetic mean
Annual geometric mean
24 hours
Particulate Matter - Fine (P1-4l..s) Annual arithmetic mean 24 hours
Sulfates
'Lead
Hydrogen Sulfide
Vinyl Chloride (chloroetbeue),
24 hours
Calendar qU,arter
30 days
1 hour
24 hours
Concentration
Stale Strndards
NA'

0.09 ppm (180 ~glm])

9.0 ppm (10 mg/m')
20 ppm (23 mglm') .

NA'

0.25 ppm (470 ~gIm])
NA'

0.04 ppm (105 Itg/m')

0.25 ppm (655 ~glm])
, NA'
20 ~g/m'
50 ~g/m'
NA'
NA'
25 ~glm'
NA'

1.5 pglm'

0.03 ppm (2 ~glm')

0.010 ppm (26 ~g/m])
Federnl Standards

0.08 ppm

0.12 ppm (235~g/o)')
9 ppm (10 tngIm')
35 ppm (40 mgim')

0.053 ppm (100 Jlg/ni')
NA'
80 ~glm3 (0.03 ppm)
365 ~glm'(0.14 ppm)
NA'
50 ~glm'
'NA'
150 ~g/Il1'
12 ~glm'
65 ~glm'
NA'

1.5 flglm'
NA'
NA'
NA'
Visibility R~ducing Particles (VRP) 8 hours (10 a.m...{) p.m PST) Particles in sufficient NA' amount to produce an
Noles: ppm
mgim'
~gIm'
PST
parts per million
milligrams per cubic meter
micrograms per cubic meter
~ Pacific Strndard Time
, No standard implemented.
extinction coefficient of

0.23 per bIometer when
the relative hmnidily is
less than 70%.b
• Slatewide VRP Standard applies stalewide e<cept in Lake Tahoe Air Basin. This standard is,inlended 10 limit the frequency and severity of visibility impaiqnent due to regional haze and is equivalent '0 a 1 O-mile nominal visual range.

Source: WZ[ Inc. 2002
01800
0000855
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1061, Packet Page 1389 .'
'. . .

City of BakOfSfi.ld Chapler 3B. AIr Ouanty
If an area does not meet the federal NAAQS shown in T~ble 3B-2 are called. "oonattainmeill" areas. For these nonattainment areas, the federal Clean Air Act requires siates to develop and adopt SIPs, which are air quality plans showing how air quality standards Will be attained. The SIP, which 18 reviewed and approved by the EPA, must demonstrate how the federal standards will be achieVed. Failing to submit a plan or secure approval eould lead to denial of feileral funding and permits for such improvements as highway construction and sewage treatment plants. 10 cases where the SIP is subrnitted by the State but fails to demonstrale achievement of the standards .. the EPA is directed to prepare a Federal Implementation Plan. In California, the EPA has delegated anthority io prepare SIPs to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), which; in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts.

State Regulations
Gosforo Village
Draft EIR
California Clean Air Act
Responsibility for achieving California's standards, which are more stringent than federal standards, is placed On the ARB and local air pollution control districts, and is to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans that.will be incorporated into the SIP. In California, the EPA has delegated authority t.o prepare SIPs to the ARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts
The ARB has traditionally established sble air quality standards, maintaining oversight authority in air quality planning, developing programs for reducing emissions from motor vehicles, developing air emi.ssion inventories, collecting air quality and meteorological data, and approving stale iniplementation plans.

Responsibilities of air districts include overseeing stationary source emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality stations, overseeing agricultural burning pennits, and reviewing air qualityrelated sections of environmental documents required by CEQA.

The California CAA of 1988 substantially added to the authority and responsibilities of air districts. The California CAA designates air districts as . lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement iraosportation control measures. The California CM focuses on attainment of the state ambient air quality standards, which, for certain pollutants and averaging periods, are more stringent than the comparable federal standards. . .

The California CAA requires designation of attainment and nonattainment areas with respect to state ambient air quality stancl;rrds. The California CAA also requires that local and regional air districts expeditiously adopt and prepare an air quality attainment plan if the district violates state air quality standards for CO, SO" NO" or ozone. These Clean Air Plans are specifically designed to attain these standards and.rnust be designed to achieve an annual five percent reduction in districlwide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its Pfe~ursQr.s.l.fo, . 39-7
01801
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1062, Packet Page 1390 . '
· .

CIty.of Bakersfield Chap.er 3B. Air Quality.
lDcally.pr~pa,.ed attainment plans are required fDr areas that viDlate th~ state PM •• standaids. (
The California CAA requires that the stale air q""lity standards be mel as expeditiDusly as practicable but, unlike the federal CAA,does nol sel precise attainmenl deadlines. Instead, the acl established incre."ingly stringent requiremeJ)ts for areas thaI will require mDre time tD achieve the standards.

The CalifDrnia CAA emphasizes the· control of "indirect and area-wide sOUTces" of air pollutant emissions. The California Clean Air Act gives local air pollution contrel districts exPlicit authority.to regulate indirect sOurces Of air pollution and te establish traffic control measures (TCM). The California CAA dees not defme indirect and area· wide sources. ·Howevcr, Sectien 110 efthe federal CAA defmes an indirect source as .

U a facility, building, structure, installation, rcal property, road, or highway which attracts, or may atlract,·mobile sources .of pollution. Such term . includes parking lots, parking garages, and other facilities subject to any measure fDr management of parking supply .... "
TCMs are defined in the Calif.ornia CAA as "any strategy t.o reduce trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vemcle idling, or traffic congestien for the purpDse of reducing vehicle emissions~);
Recently enacted amendinents to the California Clean Air act impose additional requirements de~igncd tD ensure an improvement in air quality within the next five years, More specifically, local districts with rnederate air poll uti .on that do not achieve "transitional nenattainment" status by December 31, 1997, must implement the mere stringent measures applicable to districts with serio~ air pDllution. .

California Air Resources Board Diesel Exhaust Control
Program
In August 1998, the ARB identified air partiCUlate emissions from diesel·fueled engines (diesel PM) as toxic air centaminants based en their potentia!. to cause cancer and other adverse health efTeets. The ARB then cenducted a risk management evaluation !oidentiry whether a need fer further control .of diesel PM was warranted (Califernia Air Resources Beard 2001).

The ARB develeped the Risk Reduction Planta Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, and Risk Management Guidance for the Penni/ling of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines. The Board appreved these dDCumcots on September 28, 2000, paving the way for the next step in ihe regulatory process: the control measure phase (California Air Resources Beard 2001). 01802
000085'7
During the c()ntrDI measure phase, speCific statewide regulatiens designed to fiu1her reduce diesel PM emissiDns frDm diesel-fueled engines and vehicles are Gosford Village.

Draft EIR' . - 38-6
AugusI2.002 J&S02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1063, Packet Page 1391 ..

City 01 Bakersfield Chapter 3B. AIr Quality
ta be evaluated and developed. The goal of each regulation is to make diesel engines as clean as possible by esl;lblishing state-<>f-the-art technology requirements Or emission staDdards io reduce diesel PM emissions. The regulations will be develaped in an open and public pmcess where availability, applicability, and cost of technology will all be evaluated. The interested . members of the public, manufacturers, and other stakeholders will be asked to participate in the development of all proposed regulations (California Air Resources Board 2001).'
Currently, the ARB is still in the process of developing Air Toxjcs Ca!ltrol Measures.for diesel engines. A public'hearing for the ARB's diesel emission control strategy verification procedure for on-road, off-road,and stationary diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment has been scheduled to take place in Sacrameoto, California. Some of the diesel control measures identified 'by the ARB that will be addressed at the public hearing include diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters. fuel additives. alternative diesel fuels, and NOx control strategies. A further discussion of these diesel control measures identified by the ARB is prcseoted in Appendix 0 (California Air Resources Board 2002b). Please reference the final reconunendation ofthe ARB evaluation prepared in August 1998.

Local Regulations
Gosford Village
Draft EIR
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
At the local !evel, the SJVUAPCD is responsible for establishing and,enforcing local air qua lily rules and regulations that address the requir,ements of federal and state air qualily laws, Air quality is also managed through land use and 'development planning prectices. These practices life implemented in Kern County through the geneTal planning process.

The District regulates air quality in the Bakersfield area. The predicted emissions associated with vehiCUlar traffic (mobile sources) are not subject to the District's pennit requirements. However, the District is responsible for overseeing efforts io improve air quality within the San Joaquin Valley. The District has prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. The District reviews land use changes. to evaluate the potential impact on air quality.

San JoaquIn Valley Air Pollution Control District
Regulation VIII 01803
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation vm specifies control measures for specified outdoor sources of fugitive particulate matter emissions. The,District does not require a pennit for these activitie~, bill p\,:,s , impose measures to control fugitive dust, such as the application of water of ' a ' , .' 38-9 OG00858 August 2002 J&S02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1064, Packet Page 1392 ..

City of Bakersfleld ChapleT 3B. Nr Quality
chemical dust suppressant. The rules contained in Regula.tion VIII are Iisled below.
• Rule 8010 Fugitive dust administrative requirement f~r control of Ime particulate matter. .
• Rule 8020 Fugitive dust requirements for control of fme particulate matter from construction; demolition, excavation and extraction activities. • Rule 8070 Fugilive dust requirements for control of fme particulate matter from vehicle and/or equipment par1;4tg, shipping, receiving, transfer; fueling and service areas one acre or larger. . .

In addition, the facility shall include the following as requirements oflocal zoning regulations.
• Water sprays or chemical supprcssants musl be used in all unpaved areas to control fugitive emissions. .
• AlI access roads and parking areas must be covered with asphalt-concrele paving.

Compliance with District Regulation VIII and the local zoning code will reduce particulate emission impacts to levels that ~e conside~ed uless tftan significant-.'" Impacts and Mitigation
Methodology
, 0000859
Gosford Village
DraREIR
Construction Emissions
Construction· will also result in exhaust emissions from diesel-powered heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from construction include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies 10 and from the site, emissions produced onsi!e as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting excavated malerials from the site and fill soils to the site.

Emissions due to construclion· activities include CO, ROG, NOx, SOx, and PMIO• Emissions froiD construction activities were calculated using Ihe UEBEMIS 7G air- quality model. Model inputs included five pieces of earthmoving equipment, two trucl<s. four miscellaneous mobile units, one fork-lift, seven. construction WOrkers commuting 10 the site, 30 days of grading, and a six-month construction period. The model output is available upon request at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department as part of the W'Zllnc. report (W'Zl me 2002). 36010
01804
August 2002 J&S02201
(
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1065, Packet Page 1393 .. . . . . ~
City of Bakersfield
GDsrOrd Village
Draft EIR
Chapter JB. Air auaUIy
Operationai Emissions
Mobile Source Emissions
Vehicle emissions have been estimated for the year 2020 (expected completion · date of this project) using the URBEMIS 7G computer model from the California Air Resources Board. This model predicts carbon monoxide, total bydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter einissions. from motor vebicie traffic associated with new or modified land uses. The URBEMIS 7G modeling results are available upon request at.the·City of Bakefsfield Planning Department as part of the WZl Inc. report (WZl Inc 2002).

Carbon monoxide emissions are a function of vehick idling time and, thus, under normal meteorological conditions dePend on traffic flow conditions. Carbon monoxide transport is extremely limited; it disperses rapidly witl! distance from the·sollrce. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions,however, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway" or intersection may reach unbealUifullevels, affecting sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospital patiellls, the elderly, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS). CO "Hot Spot" modeling is required if a traffic study reveals that the project will reduce lhe LOS on one or more streets to E or F: or, if the project will worsen an existing LOS F.

The impact ohhe proposed project on local carbon monoxide levels was assesse? at these intersections with the Caltrans CALINE-4 Air Quality Model, wbich allows microscale CO concentrations to be estimated along each roadway corridor or near intersections. This model is designed to identify localized ~oncentrations of carbon monoxide, often tenned "hot spots." Year 2020 traffic data as predicted by the traffic study was used in the CALINE-4 model.

A traffic study was prepared by McIntosh & Associates for the Gosford Village project. The study indicates that nine intersections warrant a CO Hot Spot analysis:
.• Gosford Road and Stockdale Highway,
• GosfordRoad and MingAvenue,·
• Ashe Road and Ming Avenue,
• Ashe Road an~ White Lane,
• Stine Road and White Lane,
• Ashe Road and Harris Road,
• Gosford Road and Panama Lane,
• Ashe Road and Panama Lane, and
• Gosford Road and Taft Highway (PM hours).
313-11
01805
August 2002 J&502201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1066, Packet Page 1394 ': .. ~ ... ~
n~.'
~1 '. "i
, ,
City of Bakersfield
,{oOOQ8~j.

Gosford Village
Draft EIR
Chapter ;38. AIr QUality
The modeling analysis was penonned for worst.ease wind arigle and windspeed.

The assUmptions are shown.below.
• Due to lack of specific receptor locations for CO hot spot analysis, locations near !he most impacted intersections were used for tlris analysis. Selected modeling Illcations represent the intersections that would potentialJy experience LOS F or W{)Ise in year 2020. Receptor locations with !he possibility of extended 'outdoor exposure are located between 21-51 meters from the roadway centerlines.
• Four receptor locations at each intersection, under worst.ease wind angle conditions, were modeled to determine ,carbon monoxide dispersion concentrations. CO concentrations were modeled at these locations to asSess the potential maximum CO exposure that would occur ill year 2020. • The calculations assume a meteorological condition of almost no wind (0.5 mls), a flat topological condition between !he source and the receptor, and a mixing height of 1,000 meters.
• CO concentrations are calculated for the one-hour averaging period, and then . compared to the state one-hour CO standard. CO eight-hour averages are extrapolated using techniques outlined by the U.S .. ;Envirorunental Protection Agency and compared to the carbon monoxide eight-hour standl!Tds. • Emission factors for year 2020 were used in the model. Caltrans has indicated in its Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltraos, revised 1997) !hat the "intersection" option of CALINE-4 should not be used because it calculates model emissions based on an algorithm . developed for ao outdated vehicle fleet. TIlC "at-grade" option has been used in this analysis. El!lissionfactors for approach and departure links were based on approach and departure average speeds as a function of traffic :
volume, average cruise speed, and percentage of red time. • Concentrations are given in parts per million (ppm) at each of the receptor locations.
• Future year ambient CO concentrations were derived by averaging the last two years' CO levels monitored at Bakersfield's California Avenue station.

Actual future ambient CO levels may be lower due to emissions control strategies that will be implemented between now and year 2020.

The input and'output data for Caline-4 modeling is available upon request at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department as part of the WZI lnc. report (WZI Inc 2002).

Area Source Emissions 01806
Area source emissions result from fuel and personal product use. Electricity and natural gas are utilized by almost every counnercial and residential development.

The URBEMIS 7G computer model predicted the following emissions from Ilatural gas usage and landscape maintenaoce. The model output is available upon request at the City of Bakersfield Planning Department as part of the WZI Inc. report (WZI lnc 2002). The numbers shown below are from typical energy 39-12
Augusl2002
J&S 02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1067, Packet Page 1395 . . . ~ ..
. City of Bakersfield Chapter 38. Air Quality
consumption and do not include' fireplaces and conswner products such as hairspray. .

Criteria for Determining Significance
Gosfortl Village
Dlaft EIR
Based on the State CEQA Guidelines and sblndard professional practice, the proposed project would result in a sigilificant impact on air quality if it would:
•. conflict with or obstruct .irnplernentationofthe applicable aiT quality noanagernentplan;
• violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
• result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project tegion is nonattairnnent under an applicable federal or state ambient aiT quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
• expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • create objectionable odors affecting a substantial nwnber of people.

In addition to.the above significant criteria, emission thresholds are contained in \ the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts produced by the .

SJVUAPCD (SJVUAPCD 2002). According to the SJVUAPCD, impacts would be significant if the.project would:
• expose sensitive recept<:>rs to substant:ial pollutant concentrations 7 • produce greater than 10 tons/year ROG,
• produce greater than 10 tonsfyear NO",
• exceed National or California Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO (9 ppm 8-hr average; 20 ppm I-hr average), or
• not comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control's Regulation vm rega.rding particulate matter emissions from construction activities.

Compliance with District Regulation vm and the local zoning code will reduce particulate emission impacts 10 levels that are considered less-thansignificant by the SJVUAPCD.

Additionally, the. SJVUAPCD bas not established a significance threshold for PM ... However, because the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as a severe PM" nonattaimnent area for the federal standard, emissions exceeding Ille SJVUAPCD's New Source Review thresbold of 15 tons per year are considered a significant impacl (MitcbeII pers. corom.).
3B-13
01807
• ,1. ,~( " .' i.':

O{J(}0862
Augusl2002
.w>02201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1068, Packet Page 1396 . . ..

City of Bakersfield .Chaptef3B. Air Quality
Project Impacts
.0000863
.- ,.-<- .! ...

Gosford Village . DraftEIR
Impact B·1. Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation
of Air Quality Attainment Plan
Th~ California eAA requires non-atlainment districts with severe air quality problems to provide for a five percent reduction in non-attainment emissions per year: The SJV APCDprepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan for the SJV All in compliance with the requiremellts of the Act. The plan requires best available retrotit technology on specific types of stationary sour':es to reduce emissions.

The California CAA and the Air Quality Attainment Plan also identifY transportation control measures as methods of reducing emissions from mobile sources. The California CAA dermes transportation control measUres as, "any strategy to reduce vehicle trips, vebicle'use, vehicle Jillles traveled, vehicle idling or traffic congestion for ·the purpose of reducing motor vebiele emissions." The Air Quality Attainment Plan for the SJV All identifies the provisions to accommodate the USe oCbieycles, public transportation and traffic flow improvements as transportation control measures.

The emissions oC reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides predicted by the model exceed the District's interim threshold levels; however, Golden Empire Transit (GET) provides public (bus) transportation in the Bakersfield metropolitan area .. The project area is undeveloped; therefore, it is not currently served by GET. However, GET does provide service to the general area. The project could easily be serviced by GET upon compleiion. A "Traffic Impact.

Study" Was prepared by McIntosh & Associates to evaluate impacts on the surrounding local roadway system due 10 traffic generated by the proposed development. The Traffic Impact Study recommends mitigation measures, sucb as street improvements or traffic signals, for intersections and street segments which fall below an acceptable LOS due to the impact of future traffic. The study allocates a proportionate share of the mitigation measures to the project.

The proposed mitigation measures are traffic flow improvements, which are recognized transportation control measures 'in compliance with the Air Quality Attainmenl·Plan .
. The Air Quality Attainment Plan recognized growth of the popUlation and. economy within the air basin. TIle plan predicted the workforce in Kern County . to increase 40 percentand housing to increase 30 percent from 1990 to 2000 ..

TIlls project can be viewed as growth that was anticipated by the plan and will not conflict with Or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan.

Consequently, this impact is considered less-UUUI-signitieant.· Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
36-14
01808
August 2002 J&S (J;24.0t
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1069, Packet Page 1397 .. '
City 01 Bakersfield
Gosford VIllage
Dran EIR
Chapter 36. Air auanly
Residual Impacts
1nJpacts would be less than significant.

Impact B-2" Violation of Air Quality Standards or
Substantial Contribution to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation
Coristruction-Related Emissions
Construction of the project would result in the telllllQrary generation of emissions of ROG, NO", and PM, •. 'Construction-relatcd emissions would result from . construction.equipment exhaust, construction employee vehicle exhaust, dust from land clearing, wind erosion of exposed s!lil"and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from painting, and asphalt paving. Consiruction-related emissions would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, length of construction period, the specific construction operations; types of equipment, number of personnel, wind and precipitation conditions, and soil moisture content.

Table 3B-3 summarizes maximum daily construction emissions. Construction activities were divided into separate phases and analyzed separately.

Consequently, project significance is not a comparison of the sum of all construction phases to the SNUAPCD threshold levels. bistead,.if one phase of construction is found to have a significant impact, than the entire project is . considered to have a significant air quality impact.

The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of fugitive dust. Compliance with SJVUAPCD Regulation vm and the CitY of Bakersfield air quality regulations would result in no significant fugitive dust emissioris::To ensUre compliance,mitigation meaSure'B-!. and B-2 below shall be implemented.

Additionally; as indicated in Table 3B·3, emissions from architectural coatings exceed the SJVUAPCD's ROG threshold of 10 tons peryear. Mitigation wilf ftirQler reduce ROG levels, but not to levels below the significance threshold of 10 tons per year. Consequently, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Operation.Related Emissions
01809
The proposed project would generate motor·vehicle trips that would in tum generate operation-related air emissions. Emission calculations for with-project conditions are based on the daily trip generation data provided by McIntosh & Associates. In addition, area source emissions were calculated based on Jand-use characteristics. Area source emissions result from fuel and personal product use.

Electricity' and natural gas are utilized by almost every coumier¢ialand 3B-15
0(100864
August 2002 J&S 0220\
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1070, Packet Page 1398 .. . , City of Bakersfiefd
OO()0865
Gosford Village
Draft EIR
Chapler3B. Alrquality
residential development. Table 3B-4 sUinmarizes the results of project operational emissions. '. '
Table 3B-4 indicates that emissions resulting 'from project operations wIll exceed the SJVUAPCD's ROG and NOx thresholds of 10 tons per year; and this impact is considered significant. Implementation 'of the following mitigation measures will redtrce operational emissions, bul not to a less·than-significant level.

Consequently, this impact is considered si"gnjficant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
Construction-Related Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure B-1. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the project applicant shall submit a leiter 10 the City of Bakersfield Planning Department from sJVUAPCl'rstating the dust suppression measures that shall be completed during construction actiVities to comply with,the SJVUAPCD Regulation vm.

Mitigation Measure ~2. fu addition to compliance with RegUlation vm, llie , following measures shall be incorporated into building plans and implemented during construction activities to further reduce fugitive dust emissions associated with the project. '
, • Cover all access roads and parking areas with asphalt-<>oncre!e paving. • Ensure that asphalt-<>oncrete paving complies with SJVUAPCD Rule 4641 and resbict the use of cutback, slow-<:ure. and emulsified asphalt paving materials.
• Use water sprays or chemical suppressants on all unpaved areas to control fugitive dust emissions.
'. Enclose, cover, or water all stockpiled soils to reduce fugitive dust emissions. • Cease grading activities during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period),
• Limit construction-related vehicle speeds to 15 mph on alllDlpaved areas at the construction site.
• Cover all haul trucks when transporting loads of soils. • Wash off construction and haul trucks to minimize the removal of mud and dirt from the project site.
• Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods of time to reduce emissions associated with idling engines.
• Encourage ride sharing and USe of transit transportation for construction employees commuting to the project site.
• Use elecbic equipment for construction whenever possible instead of fossil fuel· tIred equipment.
3S-16
01810
AuguslZOO2 J.&S 02201
(
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1071, Packet Page 1399 . , . < •
Table 3B·3. Emissions from Construction ActivIties
Unmitigated Mitigated ROO NO. PM •• CO ROG NOx PMJO CO Construction Phase (tons/year) (Ions/year) (tonslyear) (tous/year) (Ions/year) (tD»sfyeor) (tonsfyear) (tons/year) . Site GradIDg 0.15 2.16 2.47 0.15 2.06 COnstruCtiOD Worker '1.09 Trips

0.17 0.23 0.44 0.04 0.17 0.23 0.44 0.04
SlatiDnaty Equipment 0.33 0.27 0.Q2 0.33 0.27 Mobile Equipment· Gas 0.02 1.88 . 1.26 0.13 0 Mobile Equipment. 0.52 6.82 0.51 0.49 6.48 Diesel 0.49
Architectural Coatings 12.95
123 . Asphalt O/fgassing 0.02 0.02 Total I
Thre$hoJd

16.D2 10.74 0.44 3.17 13046 9.04 0.44 1.64 10 10 15 NA' 10 16 15 NAt .. Totals for construction emissions are prese~ted for informational pwposes only. Project significance is Dot a comparison of the sum tota1 of all COnstruction phases to the SIVUAPCD threshold levels. Rather, jf one phase of constructiop. is found to have a significant impact. than the entire project is considered to have a significant air quality impact.

The SIVUAPCD does not have a significance cn::.·t"'e"n·a::.::.lio"-r"'c'-'o'-_________________ _ Table 3B-4. Emissions from Project Operation
ROG NOx PMJ Operational Phase • CO (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) AIca Source Emissions Natural Gas 0.09 1.24 0.0 0.49 Landscap~g 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.06 Vehicular Emissions 12.21 Tolal

34.98 1.4 119.77

12.31 36.22
ThreshOld 104 120.32
10 10 15 NA' I.

The SJVUAPCD d()es not have a significance criteria for CO 01811
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1072, Packet Page 1400 , . ,
.-
City of Bakersfield
Gosfcrd Village
O",UEIR
Chapter3B. Nr Quality
. Operational-Related Mitigation Measures
These projects will be required to comply with Title24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding energy conservation stan!lards. The applicant shall incorporate these requirements, along with the following mitigation measures, into the bUIlding plans:

Mitigation Measure 8-3
Use low-NO. emission water heaters.

Mitigation Measure B-4
Provide shade ftees t() reduce building cooling requirements consistent with the current landscaping ()rdinance requirements.

Mitigation Measure 8-5 .

Install energy-efficient and automated air conditioners.

Mitigation Measure B·6
. Exterior windows should all be double-paned glass.

Mitigation Measure 8-7
Energy-efficient metal halide parking lights will be used.

Mitigation Measure B·8
Use EPA~approved wood bmning stoves, fireplace inserts, or peBet stoves instead of conventiotlal" fireplaces.

Residual Impacts
Impacts would be significant ond unavoidable.

Impact 8-3. Cumulatively Considerable Net Increases
of Criteria Pollutants
The State of California and EPA have deiignated the SNAB as being in severe non-attainment for ozone. As seen in Table 3B-4, the project will result in cwnulatively considerable net increases in ozone precursor (ROG and NOx) emissions above the District thresholds of 10 tons per year. C()nsequently, this impact is considered significant. Additionally, construction-relatoo emissions exceed Distiict thresholds and are considered cumulatively considerable.

Implementation ofMitigalion Measures B-1 thr()ugbB-8 will reduce air quality emissions, but not to a less-Ibon-significant level. Consequently, this impact is considered significaIll and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-8.
3B-t7
01812
Augusl2002
.1&502201
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1073, Packet Page 1401 "
..

City of Bakerofield Chapter 3!1. Air Quality
Residual Impacts
ImpactS would be significant and unavoidable.
lnipact 8-4. Expose USe of Sensitive Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant Concentrations of CO
The impact of the proposed project on local carbon monoxide levels was assessed , at these intersections with the CalTrans CALINE-4 Air Q!l31ity Model. which, allows microscale CO concentrations to be ;;';timateil along each roadway corridor or ne.dntersections: Tliis moilel is designed to identifY localized . concentrations of carbon monoxide, often termed ~lhot spots." Year 2020 traffic data as predicted by the traffic study was used in the CALINE-4 model. Table 3B-5 swnmarizes CALINE-4 modeling resolts.

The CO air qualitY impact of this project is not likely to affect sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are areas where yOtUlg children, chronically ill individuals, or other individuals more sensitive than the general popUlation are located., Examples of sensitive receptors are schools, day care centers, and hospitals. '
Table 3B-5 indicates that the proposed project will not create any significant 10,caJized concentrations of carbon mono)[ide in excess of the California ambient air quality standardsof9 ppm on an 8-h6ur average and 20 ppm on a I-hour average. Neither standard would be equaled or exceeded at any ofllie ' int,rsections studied. As such, the CO impacts from the project are considered less than significant.

The potential ambient air quality impacts from this project are related to increased in traffic. The project is not expected to result in localized impacts, such as CO hoI spots, and is nol expected 10 impact nearby sensitive receptors.

Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Residual Impacts
01813
Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact B·S. Creation of Objectionable Odors Affecting
A Substantial Number Of People
QQOO~fi8
The project consists of general commercial land-uses. The generation of odors is generally associated with certain types of industrial and 'agricultural activities and is not anticipated to result from the proposed project. Therefore, the project is . ~ ., "
Gosford Village
DroftEIR 39-18
August 2002
J&S 02'201
(
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1074, Packet Page 1402 •
'. . ..

Table 38·5. CAlINE-4 Maximum Predicted C.arbon Monoxide Concentrations Year 2020 wi Project 'Year 2020 wlo Project Ploject Increase .I brl
. sht' 1 br'· 8b? I br' 8ht'
Intersection (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Gosford Road & Stockdale Highway 12.7 ' 8.9 12.7 8.9 0.0 0.0 Gosford Road & Ming A, venue 115 8.1 11.4 . 8.0 0.1 0.~7 Ashe Road & Ming Avenue 9.5 6.7 9.5 6.7 0.0 0.0
Ashe Road &: White Lone 11.7 8.2 U.5 8.1 0.2 . 0.14
Stine Road & White Lone 11.9 8.3 11.9 8.3 0.0 0.0
Ashe Road & Harris Road 9.2 6.4 !1.2 6.4 0.0 0.0
Gosford Road & Panama Lone 9.5 6.7 9.1 6.4 0.0 0.0
Ashe Road & Panama Lone 8.6 6.0 8.5 6.0 0.1 0.07
Gosford Road & Taft Highway 7.8 5.5 7.8 5.5 . 0.0 0.0
Notes~
.Predicted concen,trations mod~led using '<Worst caseu option I ~how concentrations include 31nbient CO of6 ppm (extrapolated from 2 year, 8-hour average).

Eight I-hoUI concentrations ·were obtained by multiplying the I-hour concentration by a factor of 0."-, as referenced in Screening ProcedureS/or Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources. USEPA.

October 1992:

P~ per million
01814
OG00869
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1075, Packet Page 1403 ••
City of Bakersfield Chapler 38. AIr Quality
not expected to result ill the generation of odors and impacts are considered lessthao-significant. " Mitigation Measures"
No mitigation inequired:

Residual Impacts
bnpacls would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Gosford VBlage
Draft EIR
This Air Quality bnpact Study considered the affects of the project, as defined by the Traffic Study, with the cumulative impacts of growth in the area.

The Guide for Assasing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVUAPCD 2002) under CEQA defmes cumulative impacts as two or more indiVidual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

This report considered the following cumulative impacts. " • Cumulative Ozone bnpacts - Ozone impacts are the result of the cumulative emissions from numerous sources in the region and transport from outside the region. Ozone is in chemical reactions involving ROG, NOx, and sunlight.
• Cumulative PM .. bnpacts - PM,. has the potential to caUSe significant local problems during periods of dry conditions accompanied by high winds, and during periods of heavy earth disturbing activities. PM,. may have cumulative local impacts, if, for example, several unrelated grading or earth moving projects are underway simultaneously at nearhy sites. • Cumulative CO bnpacts - Cumulative carbon monoxide impacts are accounted for in the CO Hotspot Analysis described earlier in the assessment. Tl1\ffic levels were used to detennine if the proposed project would have a significant cumulative impact.
• Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) lmpacts - Cumulative analysis for HAPs focused on local impacts on sensitive receptors. "The District recommends screening a radius of I mile for HAP cumulative imp~cts.

The existing and proposed projects within one mile of the proposed project are sbown in Figure 2-5. Three proposed residential development projects have been identified and modeled using the URBEMIS7G computer model to predict cumulative impacts. Emissions for the operational phase of these proposed projects were based on bousing lot totals provided by the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (WZI mc. 2002). The predicted model"outputs, including the Gosford Village project, are summarized in Tables 3B-{) and 18-7."" 01815 3B-19 00008'10 Aug~~
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1076, Packet Page 1404 "
City of Bakersfield
00008";1.

Gosford Village
OraftEIR
Chapter 38. Air QuaJiIY
City of Bakersfield Planning Deparbnent has advised that no other proposed or existing project, besides the three that have been previously identified, exist· ( within a·l-nn1e radius of the project (WZI Inc. 2002). Therefore, the cumulative impacts for ROG and NOx attributable to this project are considered cumulatively considerable based on the District's levels of significance as summarized ill Table 3B-7.
313-20·
01816
Augusl2002 . J&S 022<11
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1077, Packet Page 1405 .. ~ .
. :, .
. . Table 38-6. CumulaUve Impact Model Results
Mitigated Emissions
Number Emi~sions ROG No,. PM,. CO
Project Name ofLoI< Source . (tons/year) (tons/year) (Ions/year) (tons/year) South Pacific District 95 Area 5.26 0.38 0.66 5.00
Christian & Mission Vehicle 1.09 3.20 0.13 11.12 Alliance· Burlington Homes 269 Area 14.84 1.07 1.87 14.16
Vehicle 2.87 8.27 0.34 28.77
CoJeman HomesJ Inc. 267 Area 14.73 1.06 1.85 14.05
Vehicle 2.87 8.30 0.34 28.86
Table 38·7 .. Cumulative Impact Model Emissions Totals
ROG NOx . PM" CO
Project Name (tonsfyeaI) (Ionsfyear) (tonsfyear) (tons/year) South Pacific District 6.33 3.58 0.79 16.12
Christian & -Mission
Alliance
Burlington Homes 17.71 9.34 2.21 42.93
Coleman Homes, Inc. 17.6 9.36 2.19 42.91
Gosford Village 14.81 43.95 1.67 146.13
Totals 56.45 66.23 6.86 248.Q9
Threshold 10 10 15 NA'
01817
O()00872
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1078, Packet Page 1406 .'.
-;.'
. "'
. PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Laura Ciunmings, certifY and deClare as follows:

I am ovei:the age of 18 years, and 'oot a party to this· action. My business address is 2291 West March Larte, Suite III 00, Stockton, California 95207, which is located in the county where die mailing described below took place.

I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and pnrcessing ofcorresponderrce for mailing. On November ID, 2005 at my place ofbu!iiness a copy of DECLARATION OF STEVEN A ..

HERUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER HANFORD NO ON W ALMART SUPERCENTER'SREQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE was placed for deposit following ordinary course of business as foilows:
(I BY U.S. MAIL with the United ·States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid.

The envelope was addressed as follows:
[SEE ATIACHED'SERVICE LIST]
( X I BY FEDERAL EXPREsSrOVERNIGHT MAIL in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fuilyprepaid. [Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10 l3(c), 2015.5.] BY PERSONAL SERVICEfHAND DELIVERY.

BY FACSIMILE at approximately ___ .m. by use of facsimile machine telephone number (209)472-7986. 1 caused the facsimile machine to print a transmission record ofthe transmission, a copy of which is attached to this aeclaration. The transmission was reported as complete and without enOL [Cal.. Rule of Court 2008 and 2003(3).] I certify and declare under penaltyofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: NovemberlD, 2005 . ~~J1{~ Laur Cummings -'V' V'- 01818
3 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1079, Packet Page 1407 .. _ 'ti
'-
, , .
' .

Hanford No On Wnl'Mart and Valley Advocates v. Citv of Hanford . . [King, Couniy Superior Court Case No. 04-<:-0273] .

Appellate Court 1:-10. F048303

FAX I MAILING LIST
Ilichard L. Harriman
Law Offices Of Richard L. Harriman
4321 North weSt Avenue, Suite 106
Fresno, California 93705-1450
Telephone: (559) 226-1818
Facsimile: (559) 226-1870
Email: [email protected]
Michael J. Noland, Esq.

Riss. A. Stu.Ij, Esq. .

KaJm, Soares & Conway
219 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Telephone No.: (559) 584·3337
Fax: (559) 584-3348
Email: [email protected]
Timothy Jones, Esq.

John Klnsey, Esq.

Sagaser. Jones & Hahesy
2445 Capitol Street
Fresno. CA 93721
Telephone No. (559) 233·4800
Fax: (559) 233·9330
Email: [email protected]
Sally Magnani Knox, Esq.

Deputy Attorney General
State of California
1300 I Street
Sacrameo.to, CA 95814
Hanford No 011 Wal·Mart Supercooter
c(o Steve Bani,ter
Art works
120 West Sixth Street
Hanford. CA 93230
Valley Advocates
clo John C. Gabrielli. Esq.
430 D Street
Davis. CA95616
. Kings County Superior· Court
Attention: Clerk of the Court
1400 W. Lacey Blvd.

Hanford, CA 93230
California Supreme Court (5 Copies)
350 McAllister St., Rm. 1295
San Francisco. CA 94102
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioner.

Valley Advocates
4 Attorneys for ReSpondents
Ciiy ofHanfordIHanford City Council'
Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest
RHA Hanford, LLC; Olga T. Griswold
Courtesy Copy
Client Representative
Client Representative
01819
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1080, Packet Page 1408 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1081, Packet Page 1409 ... -
,i- . . ." ~
11m _. wpa; . . *_ be; IQ hE -. ~. . '-
"w
. . - '--. " ' - . .
"~.- , FI,N'AI
. Environ mento I Impact Repor
" . . '
, .
i " • '" General Plan Amendment I - .• Zone (hange #02-0193 " ' - . ....~ " ~
_ ~ , . '. - - . ~.
, , '
. - - ..........
, - '~ - , "
, '.
" - . ~ ~
, . . , ~-
. . {
,. 'L '. '
i
. '
"
- - ' ,
. - ~-
01821
0001',04-
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1082, Packet Page 1410 '.
."'
I
}-
J
i
J
)
.J
.,j
]
J
~
J
]
3 ~
)
e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
,~ ...,' ________ :-___ G_EN_E_RA_l_P_LA_"_A_M_E_ND_M_EN_T_I_ZO_N_E_C_HA_"_G_E_02_.0_193_E_'R

5.4 AIR QUALITY
This Section evaluates air quality associated with short and long-terot impacts resulting, from,builejout of the proposed Project. Information in this Section is tiased on the A/rQuaiity linpacU,tudyprepared bYWZ'lnc"{JUne 2002), whlch,is incIUc:l,ed. as Appel)i:lix15.3, Air Qualily Data, of this document.: RBF Consulting conducted:'a peer review 01 the WZI: report which was prepared pursuant to the San Joaquin . Valley Air Pollution Control District's ,Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, January 10, 2002 Revision. '

EXISTING CONDITIONS
...•
ENVIRONMENTAL'SI;1TING
The proposed Project,.site is located 'iii the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, within the City of Bakersfield, and within the Jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The, topography of the air basin includes foothills and mountain ranges to the east, west, and south,' and 'a relatively flat valley floor. The valley is characterized by long, hot; drY summers, and short, foggy winters. The features of the valley produce ,climatic episodes such as frequent temperalure inversions. The topography of the Project area is flat at an elevation of approximately 365 feet above mean sea level.

STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QlIAlIl¥STANOAROS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NMOS) are ,assigned as the re~ult of provisions of the F.ederal Clean Air Act. The 'NAAQSestablisn acceptable pollutant concentrations which may be equaled continuously or exceeded only orlce per year., California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CMQs)are limits set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Hiat I'Bnnot be equaled or eXceeded. An airpollutiori control district. must prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan if the standards are not met. The California anc.l;..National Ambient Air Quality Standards are outlined In Table, , 5.4-1, Ambient Air Qi.l8l11yStandards. ,.",.. .•
The ,following is a summary of the characferistics of primary and secondary pollutants .

Ozone {O,)
Ozone ,is a pungent, colorless ioxlc g~s. Ozone makes 'up 90 percent of the: group of pollutants known as photochemical oxidants.. Ozone and other photochemical oxidants are products of atmOSPheriC reaction' of niirogen oxides and reactive organic gases with ultraviolet liglJt. ,High ozone levels can adversely affect plants, and in humans, can cause respiratory iniiation. " , ,
Carbon Monoxide {CO) 01822
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, coloriess toxic gas produced by incompleie combustion:of carbon-containing substances. Carbon monoxide Interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen from blood into body tissues. 0 1.81."'; 00· (:', . ( .. '; .. t"?· ))"1.' i .,~
F1N~l -NOVEMBER 2002' 5.4·J Ai(Q\Jali\y
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1083, Packet Page 1411 .'
CITY OF BAKERSFiElD
'(9~. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT !ZONE CHANGE o2·b:i93 EIR -, ------~----------~--------------------~'~ .. --- O2ooe(03)
Respirable
P3f1lculal.

Matter
(PM,,)
Carno •.

Monoxide
(CO)
Nitrogen
\lioxlde
(N02)
Lead
Sulfur
DloJdde.
(S02)
Vtsiblllly
'Reduclpg
PartIcles
..• Sullales ;.

Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour
SHour
24 Hoor
24 Hour
30 days'lY"'"ge
Calendar Quarter
24 Hour
3 Hour
1 Hour
BHour
(10 am .. 10 6 p.m"
PST)
24 Hour
1 Hour
FINAL • NOVEMBER 2002
Table 5.4-1
Ambient Air Quality Stan~ards
50 ~!Pm'
Ultraviolet
PhotometJy
Size Se!edIve
Intet Sampler
ARB Method P
(1lI22I85)
No Separate Slate Standard

1.5~!Pm'

0.03 ppm
(42Vglro'l
Noo.<Jisperslye
lnfrnIed
Photomelry
(NDtli) . . --.-.... ~
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
54 (12174)
AtomIc
FluoresCence .
"'"l.MeUlloa 61
54·2
0:08 ppm
(157~!Pm')
·-·:~iamer.asPrimary
Slandard
Same .as Pnmary
Standard
sam. as Primary
Slandard
None
Same as
POrn""
Slimdard
No . Federlil·
Standards
Elhyl.".

Chemiluminescence
klerUaI
SaparaUOII
Gravimetric
Ana/ysls
Separation
Gravlmelrlc;
Non·
DlspelS;ve .

Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR) .

Gas Phase
ChemilumJ~escence
Sam~er and
Alomlc
Para/osoalliJfno
01823
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1084, Packet Page 1412 '. -.
,~
" '1
J
l .. _0.
j
1 J,
],
11 ~-: .
.. ,.,
. tJ"
.J,~'~
1 ..

J
~.
l'~)
1 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
~·· "<!!. . GENERAl PLAt! AMENDMENT !ZONE CHANGE 02'O~~~ E{R . .~ ------------------.:....-...

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Nitrogen oxides. are .. formed fromf]itrogen -and. oxygen at. high combustion temperatures and further reacts to form other oxides of nitrogen, such as nitrogen '" '-", ,dioxide .l\Ijjr99!ln.(jioxiQe fJt;i8ll. with .,ultr.r!,'(IQI~ll!ghUo j[ljlia!e,r~.ac,ti()lJ§ producing · Photochemical smog, and it reacts hair to formOltratE! particulates. Nitrogen dioxidE1 significantly affects visIbility. . .

Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
. .

Sulfur dioxide Is a colorless, pungent gas primarily formed by combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. High sulfur dioxide concentrations irritate the upper respiratory tract, whUe low concentrations of sl!lfur dioxide injure lung tissues. ··Sulfur oxides can ('eacito form'sulfates which significantly reduce visibility. .

J>articulates (PM •• ) .

Dust, aerosols, soot. mists, and fumes make up abnospherlc particulates. 'SOurces' of particulates include indYl'trial and agrlcultural operations, combustion, and photochemical actions of pollutants in the' atmosphere.' Particulates. substantially reduce visibility and adversely affect 11)6 respir(jtory tract. PM .. is made up of finely divided particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. · .~eactive .. ()rganic Gases ·IRo.G) .'
.organic compounds are composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen. Motor vehicle emissions and evaporation of organic compounds produce hydrocarbon emissions ..

Hydrocarbon levels can affect plant growth. Many hydrocarbon speci~s. react in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog. - ...

Air Quality. Basin-wide: The San Joaquin Valley Ait Pollution .Control District has jurisdiction in. eight counties located. in :the San Joaquin Valley,including the.' Bakersfield area. The );an Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been designijltjld as. attainment for carbonrri'onoxideand non.attainment for.ozone. and parti¢ulalEtmatter :.- (PM •• ) by federal and california slam;lards. The Califomia·Clean·Air Act requires' that all reasonable stationary and mobile s'ource control measureS be'implemented in non-attainment.areas to help achieve a mandated, 'five perceni·peryear reduction In . ozone precursors, and to reduce population exposures. Table 5:4-2, Ambfent Afr Ql!afily C/assiflcations Project Area ofthe San Joaquin Va/fey; contains the ambient · air quality classifications for the Bakersfield area. . 01824 ". . .'. . Table 5.4-2. '. . Ar»bient Air Quality Classifications Project Area of the San JoaquinValley . . .' ~ . FINAL • NOVEMBER 2002 5.4·3 Air Qtlality .'
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1085, Packet Page 1413 .- t9 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
. ' , '> . _, _______ ~ ____ G_E_NE_R_A_L P_LA_N_AM_E_N_D_ME_N_T_/Z_O_NE_C_"_A_NG_E_O_2._01_93_' E_'_R Air Monitoring Station. The closes.t air monitoring station to the Project site is the \ Bakersfield Station located at 5556 California Avenue. The station monitors . parliculafes, ozorie, carboli monoxide, and nltrogendi{)xide.

Table 5A~3, Maximtilffp,oJlutlint/.!wi!ls ;itBekersfield's·,Galifomia-iwenu8 Monitorin'g Station, contains the maximum pollutanl'levels detected during '1999 through 2001 (Ilie latest data available).

Table 5.4-3
Maximum Pollutant levels at Bakersfield's California Avenue .Monitoring Station

4.51 ppm 9 ppm 9 ppm

0.107 ppm 0.089 ppm. , 0.115 ppm 0.25 ppm

0.025 ppm 0.024 ppm 0.053 ppm
143 ~g/m' 140 !lgfm' 190 !lg/m' 150 1J91m' 50 1J9/m'
Particulales 47 ~g/m' 451Jg/m' 47 !lglm' 50 !lglm' (PM,.) 40 !lg/m' 391Jg/m' 4311g/m' 3OI1g1m'

0.006 PIlm 0.003 ppm 0.005 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.04 PPm ,

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
, Air quality .impacts of Ihis· Project are not likely fo affect sensitive receptors., Sensitive receptors ar\! areas where yoling children, chronically ill Individuals, or other individuals ' inore sensitive ,thiin the: general population are, located. Examples , of sensitive {ecepjors are schools, day ciue centers, and hospitals .. ,· The rular.':ls~ f.tl9l\p.tor Is WA KendrickScnool; Whith Is located approxlniately"O,5~ miles northofltie' Project site., There are, also, a Tesidentlal areas'bordering Ihe P~oJect.sitfrto the north and east, which cO!Jld contain sensitive receptors::' , \~" b6ti±8~8 '. -.. ' " 01825
FINAL. NOVEMBER 2002 5.4=4 A' 0 ....

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1086, Packet Page 1414 . \
,
1 ~J
, . e CITY OF BAKERSAElD
• ~' • _: ________ -'-___ G_E_N_ER_A_L_PLA_N_A_M_EN_D_M_E_N_T/_Z_O_NE_C_H_A_N_GE_O_2_.0_19_3_El_R .. -~- -. ". '" ...... ~. - .'-' ". ' .. .

StANDARDS OF$iGNlfICANCE
'SIGNIFICANeE CRl11ERIA
In accord~rice with CEQA,the effects of a Project are evaluat~d.to: d~t~rmine if they will result in a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is required to focus on 'these ,effllcts and offer mitigation measures 10, fllduGe or. avoid any sig(1ificant ,impacts which are identified., The criteria, oJst.an\fards" u(!e<t J(Uleiermine Ihe significance of impacts may vary depending on,the nature of the Project., Air qualily inipacts resulting from the implementation ,of, the proposed 'Project could be ,(;onsideredslgnificant If Ihey cause any ofthe following 10 occur:

COnflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (reter to Impacl Statement 5.4-4); ~
Violate any air'qualily standard or contribute substantially to an existing or Projected air quality violation (refer to ImpactStatements5A-1 llnd 5.4-2); Result in a cumulatively considerablerietlncrease of,any criteriap~lIutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicabl'i! Federal qi ',State ambient air, quality standard (including ,releasing ,emiSsions which exceed 'quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) (refer to Impact , Statement 5.4-5);
Exposes sensitive .receptorsto substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to' Impact Statement5.4'2 and 5.4-3); andlor
Create objecti,onable odors affecting asubstaotial number ~f p~ople (refer to Section 10.0, Effecl Found No//o ,be Significa!)/).

Potential impacts associated with the proposed Project have been Identified. The impacts are,categprlzed'according to,topicJhen numbered .consecutively under each category. ,Mitigatiof] m~asures at the end of t!Jls Section directly correspond to the' nuniberea'TmpaCt statements below. ,',' , " '
"lMPABrs '
SHORT.TERM EMISSiONS . 01826 ,"' .'

5.4-1 Significant short-Ienn air quality ,impacts, may occur during site ,preparation and project cons/mction.' These impacts are' consldered1ess ' .rhansignincant wilh implementation tJf the -recommended mitigation "measures" (Miligation in this, instance refers' 10 applicableCily '";!'Development CodB' Sections and SJV APeD Rules.) ,,' , " ShorMerm impacts froni the projects Wollid primarily result in fugitive j:;arti~Liiate matter emisslons,during construction, Grading, excavatiori;trenching', 'filling, and other construction activities result in increased dust emissions. 'Regulation VIII of the San Joa<juiri Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District sPllcifies cont.rol measures for specified outdoor sources of fugitive particuiate matter emiEi~ioiis. RU~,'....8910 , OQO·1; lia(l . .,.J>i:'. ." .' .I
FINAL· NOVEMBER 2002 ' 5.4·5 Air quali~
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1087, Packet Page 1415 .. e CITY Of BAKERSFIELD
• . • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IZONE CHANGE 02-0193 EIR
.--~--.------"-.---.,--.----~;,..~----- ~~ ---------------'----..:..------ - .. --~~--~--.-.~---~---~--."...----,--- contains administration requirements, Rule . BOiO· applies to·con5.lrifdl.Qn·activil!eii, and Rule 8070 applies 10 vehicle and equlpmenl.parking, .fueling,.and.~.efltjce areas.

The Alr District does not ·require a permilfol":1hese 'activities, • but-does impose measures to control fugitive dust, such as the application of water'or a chemical dust ·su~·pressar\t··,,··, ... .

Construction woulD also result in exhaust e~issions irom diesel-powered heavy ·equipment. Exhatistemissions,from c:lonstruGtion·iriGlude·emjssions~ass()ciated·wlth,·· the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the site, emisslilns produced onsite as the equipment is used and emissions from trucks transporting excavaied . materials from the site and fill soils to the site. Examplesof-these--emis1!lons include CO, ROG, NOx, SOX,. and PM, •.

The proposed Project may haVe potentially. significant short-term construction equipment emission impacts, which could exceed the Air District threshold levels lor ·several criteria pollutants. Exhaust emission factors for typical. diesel-powered heavy. equipment, ·are·found .in U.S. EPA AP-42. Volume II, Table 11-7.1 (1985) (refer to Table 5.4-4, Emission Faclors for Heavy-Duly Diesel-Powered Equipment). Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day. Numerous variables factored - ,., ihto estimating total. construction emissions inClude: level of activity, length of 'construction period, number of pieces .. and . types .of equipment ln use, site . characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and amount of materials to be transported onloffsite. Additional exhau:;t emissions would be associated with the transport of workers and materials. Because the specific mix of . construction· equipment. needed for future· development is not presently known, equipJ)1ent emissions cannot be accurately quantified. This. d,ata is not available until . the construction of specific project components is undertaken. The constructiori· equiptJ)ent should be properly and routinely maintaine<j; as reco'!!!llended by manufacturer manuals, to control exhaust emissions.
. .. Table 5.4-4 .. .....

Emlsslon:Factors. for Heavy-Duty Dies.el-Powered .Equipmeht • ~ .;' .... <'
.' • .:. ~._: oj ;, , ' '"0 .
<106i?~22'· ., , .
01827
FINAL. NOVEMBER 2002 5.4,6 . Aft OIl~lIty
\
' ..

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1088, Packet Page 1416 "
--'I
J.

J
. CITY OF BAK~RSFIEl~
GENEllAl PLAN AMENDMENT IZONE CHANGE ut·Ol.~l EIR'
The B~k~rsfiel(l are~ .1I1J~ .the §JIO doaqujn V~!~*:lJ~~n~.l"\on~~~~inT,t;,n}.f?r p'a~c~lates_ , ,·""·,,,,'Altl'loughthepr0PQsed.lamiusesa[e.no1..cuoSlde[elt,.t!:>Qlenllgt§Qgf.~.e_for,s!9[1jfi.c.,,!}t particulate emissiens, fugitive particulate emissiens would occur during. construction.

Construction activity has the potential to generate 1.2 tons ,?f total suspended particulates per acre per ml:il:\lh QL·activity.·~. ,The..,proP'.9!w!1 pr,9je~t involves development of 37.52 acres. Fugitive consfruciion emiSSions. have 'the potential 10 cause a sjgnificarll impact on air quality, The application of water,or other dust . ,., .suppressE!l)t"couldsignificanilpeduce emis.sions .•... Qplll:!ling Ille mqislure conl!,)nl courd req!l~ emissions on unpaved roads by 75 percenf and use of a chemical dust suppressant on storage piles could reduce emissions by approximately 90 percen!.' Assuming that the total suspended particulates are comprised of '50 percerit PM.o and Jhat the application of water conlrols emissions by 50 percent, .fugitive PM.o emissions. during construction coul~ be reduced to 0_3 Ions pel' acre permonth·pf activity. Aciual emi~sions would depend oil the leyei of QcflVily and the type of- contro.l ,being used. A construGiion. schedule for each project component would be required to develop accurate' illllission' -eistima!es"frbm--'coristructioii.

Control measures required and enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District under Regulation VIII would ~ontrol these short-Ierm emission sources to a level that is considered less than Significant provided a limited amount of acres " is .disturbed at any' one time. The following three rules related to fugitive dust control apply to this project:
• ,RuleB010 Fugitive dust ;IdministratlVe requirements for 'control of fine particulate,maller- '
Rule 8020 Fugitive dust requirements for contr.:il of fine particulate mailer. .from construction, demolition, excavation and extraction activities, ' Rule 8070 Fugitive dust requirements for control of fine partrculate mailer from vehicle 811d/or' equipment parking; shipping, receiving; 'transfer, fueling and service areas one acre or larger.

Inaddition,lhe Project{shal! incl~de' the foll6wing as required by the Bakersfield Zor:aing~Code. . /. '.' ._. ;Water sprays ~r chemical suppre~sants must be'used in 'ail' unpaved areas to ,control fugitive emissions. . ,
All. access roads and parking areas must be cOllered' with asphalt-concrete . . Pilving.
01828
. ~;.;, ..
. f EPA. ComplliJUono' Air P"/lUl.·n(E~issidil FiictOis, Volume I: SiationaryPoirit a~dArea Sources, EPA' ' Publication No. AP-42. Fifth Edition, GPO Stock No. OS5.-00cHl0251-7. January 1995; SeClion 13.2'.3, Heavy Construction Operations.
, Un!led States Environmental ProtecUon Agency, Conlrol 0' Open Fugitive Dusl Sau",.s, EPA-4S0f.Hl1J-. 008, September 1988. .
'ibid.

FINAL. NOVEMBER 2002 5.4·7 .AlrQuallty ,
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1089, Packet Page 1417 .'
" . em OF BAKE~nELD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /zONE CIIANGE OH193 EIR
Compliancewitti Regulation VIII of· -the SanJoaquinValley~:Unilied.Air .Pollution . • C6illror'(jJstrtcf'(ni'c1'Ihe~eaKeisfietd~Z!initi9"ClidfJ'Wbt:ltd~teduceopartictllale-emission 'impacts to levels ih~f arecoiisidered less'ffialislgrilfic<lnl: . . ... ,-- .. '[()~G'TiR'Mo~~~ATrptijftEMrS-SJONS . ~ .:.:- .", .. -. -.. -----.--.~ .. : .. -.. ".-; -, .. ,~ .. ~ .

5.4·2 The Project may resuit In an overall Increase in the local' and regional pollutanf load"dl1t!/(f direct'impacts (rom vehicle 'emiss/ol1$ and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption, This impact is considered significant imd unavoidable for ROG .arid NOx.

Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generllted from project-related' traffic and area source emissions generated directly from the nalural gas consUmed and indirectly from' the power plant providing. electricity to the 'Project sile, Emissions associated ·with each ·of these. sources are· discussed and .calculated below, . .

Mobile Source - Ozone
., .
rhe Bakersfield area is a non-attainment area' for federal air quality standards for ozone and particulales. Nitrogen !)xides and reactive organic gases are regulated as ozone. preCursors: A precur&or is defined by the District as "a direclly emitted air contaminant that, when releMed into the atmosphere, folinsor causes to be fonned or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminantfor which an ambient airquality standard has been adopted", •
. .

Tile District regulates air equality inthe Bakersfield area. The predicted emissions associated with vehicular traffic (mobile sources) are not subject to~,the District's permit requirements, However, the District is responsible for overseeing efforts 10. improve air quality'Wilhin the San Joaquin Valley, The District has prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan to bring the .San Joaquin Valley into compliance with the California Ambient Air Qmility Standard for ozone .. The District reviews land use changes to evaluate IhEl;rl>otential impact on air qlJality, The District has.-establlshed· ',. a Significance It'wel for ROG and NOx of 10 tons per. ye'ar each" but has nol . :established levels of significance for other pollutanls. .

Vehicle emissions have been estimated for .the year 2020 using the URBEIVIIS 7G computer model from the Califomia Air Resources Board, This model predicts carbon monoxide, ·tolalhydrocamons, . riitrt)gen oxides, oxides. of sulfur, and partiwlate matter emissions froin motor vehicle Iraffic. associated with new or modified land uses, Appendix 15,3, Air Quality Data, contains the URBEMIS 7G modeling results .
. . Project-noilated ~obilesource mitigated :emissions for ROG .. and NOx would be considered signiflcantbased on the District's levels of significance as suml11arized on • Table 5:4-5;Ldng-Term Project Emissions: . ''- .
@"'t;\ .... 0 ~.A, ... ,...¥.v~.Q;)_\;(;.,;':.!t:

FINAL· NOVEMBER 2002 54 8
01829
....

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1090, Packet Page 1418 J
-_'.
.'
.. ,' r
"
"
J
~"
[I,
:~'I -.",
II
. em OF BAKER:.,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTIZONE CHANGE 02·019' Eo.,
,",. ". , _1:l\bJil !!,~.5~. . . L.,
..... --'-.. ''------.. ~ ..... ,-.. ,--~--Long.l'ermJ"wJectEmfssions.... . __ .. __ ... _,,',, ___ " .. __ " _ .... " ...... " I
.• Mobile Source Emissions 10.39 30.9 105 1.24
• Area Source emissions 00.06 OO~71 0.33 . 0.00
Total Mitigated Emissions 10.45 31.6t 105,33 1.24
sJv APCD Significance Threshold 10 10 N/A NlA
Y.s Yes., ,HIli. . N/A
. ROG = reacNve organic gases
NO. = nitrogen oxides
cd = carbon monoxide .f, PMIO = fine particulate maUer
Area Source Emissions
The. proposed Proje«t would result in personal .product use, :,lhd would create electrical demands and 'heating demands resulting in natural gas combustIon, Electrical demand V!fould result in electrical generation emissiQns.from local.·power .plants. The UHBEMIS 7G cOll)putermodel predicted emissionsf~om.typical energy consull)ption,. gas" usage, landscape maintenance, apd consumer ·products. The. model output is iricluded in Appendix ·1.5.3;Air Quality Data. Asiridicated in Tai)le

5.4-5, Long-Term Project Emissions, area source emissions generated by the Project at buildout would not individually exceed SJVAPGD threshoids; . However, as discussed below, area~~ource emissions' combined with vehlculatemlssions would' ,;, calls'e oJ)erational emissions t6 exceed SJVAPCDthresnolds forROG and NOx, Potential Effect on Sensitive!Jeceptors 01830
Air quali;y impacts of the Project ;irEinotiilielyto affect se~si\ivereceptors. Sensitive receptors are areas where young children, chronically III Individuals, .or other. individuals more sensitive than the general: population are located. Examples of sensitive. receptors are schoots,day care. centers,,,and·hcispitills.

The nearest receptoris WA Kendrick'Scho.ol; which Is located approximately 0.5- . mile north of the Project site_ 'There is also a resid.ential are~l bordering the Project site to the north and east, which could contain sensitive receptors.

The potential am!>ienl air quality impacts froni the Project arerEilated to increases in traffic. The Project is notexpect<3d to"result hlocafized.lmpacts, such as co hoi spots, and is not expecled to impactneai1>y sensitive receptors; .

FINAL. NOVEMBER 2002 5.4-9
.. OO'Oo'1l ClZS . ~re, n~r L~ .. }-!,;t
Air Quality
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1091, Packet Page 1419 "
'I
CITY OF BAKERSFQ ElO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGEOz.o19~ EIR
Potential Impacts from .odors and Hazardo!ls Air Pollutants The Project consists of general commercial land uses: The generation of odors' and hazardous air pollutaots,isgeneralfy assoPillted with cen;!in 'types, of industrial and agriculturiil activities,', Therefore, the Project Is not expeCfect 10' result in the generation of odors or. hazardous air:poliuIBlits.

Total Project Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 5.4-5, the mobile,source and area emissions associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant, emissions in excess of SJVAPCD thresholds. Thus, implementation ofth'e proposed Project would create a significant and unavoidable individual Project impact from RaG and NOx emissions. . 'LOCAUZEDCO EMISSIONS

5.4·3 The Project may expose sensitive recep/ors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant' impact would occurJn this regard.

Mobile Source - Carbon MonOXide
Carbon monoxide emissions are a function' of vehicle' idling time and, thus, under normal meteorological conditions, depend on traffic flow conditions. Carbon monoxide transport is extremelY'fimited; it displ1rses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, 'i'however, CO concentrations close to a congested roadway or intersection may, reach unhealthful levels, ,affecting sensitive receptors (residents, schOOl children .. hospital.,patients, tlie elderly, etc.), Typically, high CO concentralionsare asSociated with' roadways or intersections operating ,at an unacCeptable Level of Service (LOS) .. , CO ,"Hot Spot" , modeling is requited if a traffic sludy reveals that, ihe project will reduce the LOS on one or more streeis to E or F; or, if the project will worsen an existing. LOS F.

A tfaffic study was prep~;red by Ruettgers & SchUler for-the propose'lproject.' The ,study indicates that tvielve unsignalized' intersections (based on 'Year 2020 + projections) warrant a CO Hot Spot analysis:
.• 'SouthHStreet-at McKee Road'
" ',Hosking' Road at Wible Road'
, ", Hosking Road at South H Street'
Berkshire Road at·South H Street' _
Panama lane at Gosford Road'
Panama ,lane ,at Monitor Street', '
White lime al State Road 99 North Bound Ramp' '
.; aerkshire Road:at Wible Road* ,. White lane at Wible Road • While,Lane at State. Road 99 SouthBoundRamps
• Panama lahe alWibleRoad '
, Wlble.,Road at Harris Road
01831
'OOOfS~6 .".:;' ··Denotes intersection;s: for which the CO analysis was based on mitfgatlen measures 'proposed In Ihe TraffiC Sludy, " ' ,
! ••
fiNAL. NOVEMBER 2QQ2
'-
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1092, Packet Page 1420 .. e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
, .~. . ' ___________ ,--G_E_NE-RA-L-P-LA-N-AM-E-ND-M-E-N-Tl-Z-ON-E-C-"_AN_G_E_02_"_Ol_93_E_IR --: ...•. : .•.. ~-------'---------~--:----'----
The impact of the proposed Project on local carbon monoxide levels was assessed at these interseCtions' wilfi'll1e taltrsns-CAtlNE"I -Air QualityMdd~l/ which allows .\ j
1 _.t •. _
fr ,-, ~
;~ ;J -.-'
fl·
'
<-
l
J
·-'--~~rni6fessa.le CQ-sQflGaRifation~estimate<La/on!}-f'ach rbadlw;w.GQm(lo[ <If Of1ar inteIsections. This model is deSigned to Identify lo.cali;led c()l1centrations of carbon. monoxide, often termed "hot spots". Year 2020 traffic as predicted by the Traffic Study was used in Ihe CALlNE:4model .

C
I
: Noles: I.
. ThemOd"'lio~ "1J9Jy:;i~ w~.~pe!f9rm.~i;lfor \\Iorsl-case windan~le. and windspeed.

The as.sumptio.ns used in conducting the modeling analysis are provided in Appendix

15.3, Air Qu.lity Data.

The results pf the m()dellng analysis are shown in Table 5.4-6, CAL;NE-4 Predfcfed Carbon Monoxide (CO) Cpncentrations. The modeling results were compared to the California ambient air quality standards for carbon mOrioxide of 9 ppm on an B-hour average and· 20 ppm on a 1-hour average. Neither slimdardwould be equaled or exceeded at any of tlli! ·intersections stUdied.· As such, the CO impacts from the pr,oposed Project are considered less ihan significant. The input and output data is ·cQntai[led in Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data:
.. .. .' ·Table 5.4-6 . . .. .

CAlINJ2-4 predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations . ,- . l.lJour conw,lralioos InclUcte ambient CO of 6.B ppm (second hlghest:i year li11pacl, 6-hOur average corrected upwards lor 1· hour averaglng.peI1od).. .

2. tUJour concentrations were obll1lned by mulUplytng Ihe i-hour ~cenlratlon by a factor of O.7,-as Jerer~nced In Screening Pro~eiluies tOt EstImatIng IIJ~ Air Quamylmpact of S/atIonalY Sou",es •. USEPA;Oc!ober. 1992: Predicted Concentrations modeled uslrig "worst cas.' opilon, . . .. 01832
000:1821·" ,,'-
FlNAL • NOVEMBER 2002 5.4-11 Air Quali\1
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1093, Packet Page 1421 ."
.-
..

CITY OF BAK£RSFIElD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IZONE .CHANGE 02·0193 EIR
··CONFORMITYWITH AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN

5.44 The Project flas the pO/Em/ialfo conhicf with £he Air Quality 7Utalnment ---- .-- ·---·----P/an.··Analysh;-hasconcludedlhataless than significaht.impact would occur in this regard_
As note.d above under the Significance Criteria discussion, a potentially significant impact to air quaUty wol.!ld occur if the Pf4i]ectwould. cpnfllctwit~or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan: AlthouglJ the Project would represent an incremental negative impact to air qllality in the Basin, of primary concern is that Project-related impacts have been properiy anticipated in the regional air quality planning process. and reduced whenever feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the Project's Conformity with the AQMP •.

Conformity with the Air QualitY Attalnmel)t Plan
The California Clean Air Act requires non-attainment districts with Severe air qllaiity problems.\o provide for a five percent reduction in n6ncattainment· emissions per . year. The San Joaquin VallEly. Air Pollution Control District prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plar) for the San' Joaquin Val!ey Air Basin in compliance with the requirements of the Act. The plan requires !:lest available' reti'ofit technology on specific types of stationary sources to re!luceemissions. The California Clean Air Act alld the Air Quality. Attainment Plan also identify lransportaflon control measures as methods of redUcing emissions from mobile sources. Tne 'Californla Clean Air Act . defines transportation .control m'easures as "any .strategy 10 reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle mires traveled, vehicle idling'or traffic congestion: for the purpose of reducing: motor vehicle emissions." .The Air Quality Attainment Plan for the San Joaquin Valley Airaasin identifies the provisions to ac<;ommedate~·the use ·of bicycles, public transportation, and traffic flow improvements as transportation control measures.

The RO~ and. NOx emissions predicted by the model exceed the Di~trict's interiM threshold levels. Goldeii Empire Transit (GEl) provides. public (bus). transportation .. in the Metropoiitan Bakersfield area, The. Project area is located near ~o separate GET bus. routes. The possibility exists that When the Project is COmpleted, the City' would Increase the level of service' to the Project area;'thereby 'reduclng the operational (vehicular) emissi~ns attributable to theProjecl' . .

The "traffic Impact study' prepared by Ruetigers & Schuler rec~min~hdsmitigation measures, such as' street improvements and traffic signals, for·intersections and slreel segments which fall below an acceptable,Level of·SerViee Clue to the. impact· of future traffic. The study allocates a proportionate share of the millgation measures to' .the Project. The proposed mitigation me.asures are traffic flow ililprovemef)ts,that ,ar", tecognlzed. transportation control measures In compliance with the Air . Quality Attainment Plan. .' .... ... ....

The Air Quality Attainment Plan recognized growth of thep6j:icilationand economy .. within the air basin". The Plan predicted tht! workforce in ~em County to increase 40 . . .... '. percent .and.houslng to increas.e 30 percenUrom 1990 to 2000: Although the , : ,.. '. ..proposed project Wi\S not anticipated by the Plan,il is consistent with growth OOO.1,828 t , .. 'H' . . . 01833
FINAL· NOVEMBER 2002 54. 11
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1094, Packet Page 1422 .-
-~:.
. _.)
..
'I
J
;J
1 ~l
)
(9 CITY Of BAKERSfIELD
• ~ ~_.: _______ ---'-____ G_E"_E_RA_L_P_LA_"_A_M_E_"D_M_E_N_T/_Z_ON_E_C_HA_N_G_E_02_-0_1_93_E_'R -....".~.;:;..~~. ~_, ~~,,~ ___ ,~O<-.. ~~'~-_, _____ . ___ ~_.~ __ ,_-~~~~,~~~-_~,,-_,,_-._- .. , .. j)rQI~~i(ms ,in., theG.q~l1ty, Thus, the, Project is considered consistent with iheAir ---·------c-----Quality-Attainment.~an .. ,--.-----_ .:. __ ._. ___ .. ,:,_. ___ .. .... . ___ ._._ CUM.!J~~~)MPACTS - --r"

5.4-5 Impacts to regional air quality resulting fiom cumulative development may ·sTgnificantlff;nPi'icliiXi,slijJgil!r:quality-reve1s;.Analysis·hasT;ondudad/hat· a less than significantimpaci. woufcl occufin this regard .

This,Air Qui!lity.lfllpacl Study considered the affects of Ihe Proje~; as defined by the Traffic Study, with'lhe cumulative Impacts of growth in Ihe area. .. .

The Gililie for Assessing and Mitigating Air 'Quality Impacts· under CEQA defines cumuiative impacts as two or more· individual·effects which. when considered .together': are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental Impacts. The document .also states that "any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact. .. would also be considered to have a slgnificanl' cumulative air quality impact."5 . ...
,I.. .

This study considered the follewing cumulative impacts:
'Cumulative Ozene Impacts. Ozone impacts are the result of the cumulative emissions from numerous seurces in the· region and transpo.rt from outside· the·region.,.Oz!,ne is in chemicalreactions..invnlvlng ROG, NOx, and,1!uniig):l1.

Cumulative pMlOlmpacts. PM,. has the potential to Cause significant locil! problems during periods of dry condition·s accompanied by high wirids, and during periods' of heavy earth disturbing activities, PM1~, may' have cumulative local impacts, if for example, several unrelated' grading or earth m.oving projects.are underwaysimullaneously 'at nearby" sites. ' Cumulative Co Impacts. ·Cumulative·· carbon monoxide impacts are· accounted for '1" the CO Hotspot Analysis described earlier in. this:' :. a'ssessinenl. Traffic levels were used to:· determine if the propo·sed ProjeCt -~ . would ·have a ,Significant cumulative inipa.ct. .'
Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutant !HAP) Impacts .. Cumulatiye ·anaiysis fer HAPs focused on local impacts onsensilive receptors. The' District recommends scr~ening a radius of one mile f.or HAP cumulative impacts. .

The 'existing. alid proposed projeclswithin one rriiie of the proposed Project are . . j"u'strated~on Exhibit 4-1, CumUlative Projects Loc;iltiori. Map.'.Slxproposecj residential development projects .have.beeoidentified and modeled using the URBEMIS 7G computer model 10 predict cumulative impacts. Emissions for the'. operational. phase of the proposed projects were based en housing lot totals provided by the City of Bakersfield Planning Department· In accordance with distiict 4 CARB Guide for Assessing and MiUgating Air Quality Impacts, revised Janua!}' 10, 20.02, 5 City of Bakersfield; Active Tentative Tracts. David Dow, last updated April 25, 2002, f 01834
• CARB Gutde for Assessing and Mlligafing Air Quality Impacts. revised Janua!}' 1 o;·:zoo;()G 0:1829. flt/AL· NOVEMBER 2002 5,4·13 Air Qualitv .

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1095, Packet Page 1423 , .
e CITY Of BAKERSAElD
"" ~ " _ . ___________ G_E .... N_ER_A-l P_LA_N_A_M_E~ND_M_E_NT'-/_ZO_N_E _CH_A_NI>_E_O_2.-0_1_93_E_1R guidance, fireplaces were not considered'since they are seasonal.ln·nature. The " predicted model outputs, including the Rroposed Project, we liumnianzed In Table

5.4"7, Cumulative Impa9t Model Results, and Table 5:4-8, Cumulative Impact Emission Totals, andere included in Appendix 15,3, Air·QuafityData.- .:rable.5,4.7.

Cumulative Imps!;t M!idel Results . "-." .. -. . "-- '.:. .-,. 93 .T5738 - John 504 Glumarra, Jr.,
T5762R-R-M 143 Developmim~ Inc,
T5941 - Cemland 240
- Summerwind 188 Inc,
Cemland 187
"
Ihe Guide for Assessing and MiJigating Air QUilfitylmpacts7 states:-'impacts oflo~al pollutants (CO,HAPs) are cumulatively significanlwhen·modeling shoWS that the combined emissions from the project andolher existing and planned projects will E)xceed air quality sland.ards,~ . Ihe projeclis not expec'tedto cause a cumulative· . impilcl . heixcessof' th~ California AlTlbienl. Air Quali)y Standards, (CAAQS) for· -,,' "several' reasons .. co "hot spot" modeling'<!emorislraled 'that the ambient aIr quality standarqs for CO would not be exceeded as··a.reslJlt of the Project. Also; the Project Is.nol a source of HAP emissions and therefore cannol have a' significant ·impact from HAPs,. ". " .
"F~rROG andNOx,lhe onlysig~ificanc~ thre~holdsexceeded would be froin the .. Project's m<;ibile' source emissions, The Project was ~elow the thresholds for both . RO(l and NO" for stationary source emiSsions: Therefore theProjei::lls consIdered to be cumulalively less lhansignificant forHOG'andN'Ox: PM'bemissions from the Project are minimai anel are expected to be' less than s,ignificant. . 0001.830' 01835
;;'~A~~:~uide for Assessing alid Mirigating Air Quality ImpaclS: revised .iamiary 10, ;~~2~P" 29:

FINAL. NOVEMBER 2002 5 a 11
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1096, Packet Page 1424 .'
I
lI ------
J
'i'
l
J
jJ
J
:j
'~J'
r
1 .. I .,
'.1 J
; , .. / ..
,
~.

I
e CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
"' ~.~. __ ..,-____ ~ ____ G_EN_ER_A_l_P_LA_N_A_M_E_ND_M_E_NT_/_lO_N_E_CIIA_N_G_E_02_-Il_19_3_E.,..'R Table 5,4-8. . cumuhitiveTmpaciEiril$sloo'Tofuls .

Cumulative 9perational impacts associated with Ihe Project are also expected 10 be less Ihansignificant. F~r IIw most part,.Ihe cumulative vehicular emissions from Ihe Project ""ould nol occljf al the site" but would be dis!ributed IhroughquI ali area" .:. surrouriding Ihe Project site. This would minimize the impact from the vehicular· sources due to the large area in I'oihich Itle.poliutants are emitted and Ihe mixing Ihat Iraffic creates. Overall, ·cumulative impacts are expectetl to be less Ihan the CMOS and, l\:lerefore, would be con!?i~efed less Inan Significant

MITIGATION MEASURES
. :~. - -. .' "'."'.'. .,",', .. This secjion directly corresponds (0 the identified Impact Statements in the' impacts subsection, . . ..

SHORT-TER.., EMISSIONS 01836

5.4-1 a
"
FINAL· NOVEMBER 2002 ..
. Thefoliowing mtligaliorimeasuresshaU be utilized during Ihe construction phase of the Project 10 reduce construction exhausl emissions:
-·000183:1

5.4·15 . Air QuaUty·
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1097, Packet Page 1425 ..
(f) ~. "'1>,
CITY OF BAKERSFlELb
. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 02-0193 [Ill
----~--~--------------------~----~~~~
.LOCALIZED CO EMISSIONS .'

5.4-3 No mitigation measures are recommended_

CONFORMITY WITH AIR QUAUTY MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.4-4 No mitigation measures are recommended:

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
No mitigation measures ·are recommended.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MIT.IGATION
ROGand NOx emissiqns from Project operations wbuld remain .significant and· unavoidable following mitigation.

If the City of Bakersfield approves the Project, the City would be required to cite their findings in accordance ·.with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. .
.~ .
. -'.
.. ~ '.
01839
FINAL. NOVFMA>R ?no? I: II 10
\.
'- .. ~jj
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1098, Packet Page 1426 Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1099, Packet Page 1427 o
....
00 -1>0
....
,
•. JAMA •• Lung Canc.~r, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long·tem1 Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002, ... Page 1 of23 JAMA&ARCHIVES f'seie'ctJour~;io;:-Resource-"-~"~-'~--~'-'"m b§o;-! •.•• __ .... _ ••...•.•.•••..•••.•• _ ...• _ .•.•••.•.••...•. _ .•. , .. ,_ •. _._...J JAMA SEARCH THIS JOURNAL: /" .. ~~--..• ".-'-~' .. "'.~'.---.-.-.~-.•. ~ .. -.--.-... '. 1'1 "'1 :,g2" '., ,. "." .. ,_.,._--, , ... _." ... ,_ .. ,'.- , .. _" .... ~- --,~ ... GO TO RDUAHCED SERRCH > ThO! Journal of the American l·l'Iedical Association - To Promote the Science and Art 01 Ml!di:::il'l~ and ~hil Betterment of the Public:: Hl!alth ."c_~'·''''~-iN!i'i(glii'''''=·i!!iI' '2.):,)jlilom'~~{~['~~IFj0, IO_, __ ... \"~" { .r_~_ .~IS!Sl;IE;,.' "'~~''''-!m"'''"'''··''''''''""'''''fJJl·''''t=~·~·'' Lll"~P:RSll~l::i· .......,.~_ .. ~"""" :su£·;:)'ii~~I~\i'!n'O~1!' , __ ,\W"",,,,~_ .. ',r>..·il'tJ·GH5;i1D ........ _ ..... _MiI = ~:JL:I:'I.e'~:i~T: "~1l1'-'i!i!i~~~'~~""~I~W .:t::;; ~17~ ,,~£.'J"~ .• ~ p.~"C!1~TiI=l11!:;rM1J·S'~;;: ~~__ A •••• ---SJ.ll,I?* "r,' •• _-" •• I~ ' Access via PURCHASE ACCESS
Vol. 287 No.9, March 6, 2002
Original Contribution
TR8lE OF CONTENTS>
Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long·term Exposure to . Fine Particulate Air Pollution
C. Arden Pope III, PhD; Richard T. Burnett, PhD; Michael l. Thun, MD; Eugenia E. Calie, PhD; Daniel Krewski, PhD; Kazuhiko Ito, PhD; George D. Thurston, ScD JAMA. 2002;287:1132-1141. .

ABSTRACT
Context Associations have been found between day-to-day particulate air pollution and increased risk of various adverse health outcomes, including cardiopulmonary mOrtality. However, studies of health effects of long-term particulate air pollution have been less conclusive.

Objective To assess the relationship between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution and allcause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants Vital status and cause of death data were collected by the American Cancer SOCiety as part of the Cancer Prevention II study, an ongoing prospective mortality study, which enrolled approximately 1.2 million adults in 1982. Participants completed a questionnaire detailing individual risk factor data (age, sex, race, weight, height, smoking history, education, marital status, diet, alcohol consumption, and occupational exposures). The risk factor data for approximately 500 000 adults were linked with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998.
http://jama.ama·assn.org/cgilcontentlfull/287/9!I132
Featured Link
· E-mail Alerts
Article Options
• Abstract
'PDF
• Send to a friend
• Related articles in this
Issue
• Similar articles In this
journal
Literature Track
• Add to File Drawer
• Download to Citation
Manager
• PUQMed citation
· Articles in ~ubMed by
'Pope III CA
·Thu'rston GO
• ArtIcles that cite thIs
article
· lSI Web of Science
(264)
· Contact me when this
article Is cited
TopiC Collections
• Pulmonary Diseases,
Other
· Occupational and
Environmental Medicine
• Oncology
• Lung Cancer
• Topic Collection Alerts
"'lit 1"'1/1"'11"'11'1'"
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1100, Packet Page 1428 o
......
~ to.)
_ lAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6,2002', , .. Page 2 of 23, Main Outcome Measure All-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.

Results Fine particulate and sulfur oxide-related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-~g/m3 elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%,6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended particles were not consistently associated with mortality.

Conclusion Long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.

INTRODUCTION
Based on several severe air pollution events,!'3 a temporal correlation between extremely high concentrations of particulate and sulfur oxide air pollution and acute increases In mortality was well established by the 19705. Subsequently, epidemiological studies published between 1989 and 1996 reported health effects at unexpectedly low concentrations of particulate air pollution. 4 The convergence of data from these studies, while controversial,s prompted ser;'ous reconsideration of standards and health guidellnes6-IO and led to a long-term research program designed to an'alyze health-related effects due to Jump to Section
• Top
· Introduction
• Methods
• Results
· Comment
• Author Information
• References
particulate pollution." -13 In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted new ambient air quality standards that would impose regulatory limits on fine particles measuring less than 2.5 ~m in diameter (PM2,sl. These new standards were challenged by industry groups, blocked by a federal appeals court, but ultimately upheld by the US Supreme Court. '4 Although most of the recent epidemiological research has focused on effects of short-term exposures, several studies suggest that long-term exposure may be more important in terms of overall public health.4 The new standards for long-term exposure to PM2,s were originally based primarily on 2 prospective cohort studies,'S,,6 which evaluated the effects of long-term pollution exposure on mortality. Both of these studies have been subjected to much scrutiny,S Including an extensive Independent audit and reanalysis of the original data. '7 The larger of these 2 studies linked individual risk factor and vital status data with national ambient air pollution data. '6 Our analysis uses data from the larger study and (1) doubles the follow-up time to more than 16 years and triples the number of deaths; (2) substantially expands exposure data, including gaseous copollutant data and new PM 2.

S data, which have been COllected since the promulgation of the new air quality standards; (3) improves control of occupational exposures; (4) incorporates dietary variables that account for total fat consumption, and consumption of vegetables, citrus, and high-fiber grains; and (5) uses recent advances in statistical modeling, including the incorporation of random effects and nonparametric spatial smoothing components in the Cox proportional hazards model. http://jama.ama-assn,org/cgi/contentifull/287/9/1132 ..., '1 1"1 ,"'"" ~ ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1101, Packet Page 1429 o
~
()I)
~
C/o)
.' JAMA •. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-tenn Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6,2002, ... Page 3 of 23

METHODS
Study Population
The analysis is based on data collected by the American Cancer Society (ACS) as part of th'e Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II), an ongoing prospective mortality study of approximately 1.2 million adults. 'S•l9 Individual partiCipants were enrolled by ACS volunteers in the fall of 1982. Participants resided In all SO states, the District of Columbia, and PUerto Rico, and were generally friends, neighbors, or acquaintances of ACS volunteers. Enroilment was restricted to persons who were aged 30 years or older Jump to Section
· Top
· Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Comment
• Author information
• References
and who were members of households with at least 1 individual aged 45 years or older. Participants completed a confidential questionnaire, which inCluded questions about age, sex, weight, height, smoking history, alcohol use, occupational exposures, diet, education, marital status, and other characteristics.

Vital status of study participants was ascertained by ACS volunteers In September of the following years: 1984, 1986, and 1988.

Reported deaths were verified with death certificates. Subsequently, through December 31, 1998, vital status was ascertained through automated linkage of the CPS-I! study population with the National Death Index.19 Ascertainment of deaths was more than 98% complete for the period of 1982-1988 and 93% complete after 1988.19 Death certificates or codes for cause of death were obtained for more than 98% of all known deaths. Cause of death was coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (lCD-9). Although the CPS-ll cohort included approximately 1.2 mlllion participants with adequate questionnaire and cause-of-death data, our analysis was restricted to those participants who resided in US metropolitan areas with available pollution data. The actual size of the analytic cohort varied depending on the number of metropolitan areas for which pollution data were available. Table 1 provides the number of metropolitan areas and participants available for each source of pollution data.

View this table:
(in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. Summary of Alternative Pollution Indices'
Air Pollution Exposure Estimates
Each participant was aSSigned a metropolitan area of residence based on address at time of enrollment and 3-digit ZIP code area. 20 Mean (SD) concentrations of air pollution for the metropolitan areas were compJled from various primary data sources (Table 1). Many of the particulate pollution indices, including PM2. 5, were available from data from the lnhalable Particle Monitoring Network for 1979-1983 and data from the National Aerometric Database for 1980-1981, periods just prior to or at the beginning of the follow-up period. An additional data source was the EnVironmental Protection Agency Aerometric Information http;//jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifullJ287/9/1132
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1102, Packet Page 1430 _ JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002; ... Page 4 of 23 Q
....
c»
....
.....

Retrieval System (AIRS). The mean concentration of each pollutant from all available monitoring sites was calculated for each metropolitan area during the 1 to 2 years prior to enrollment. 17 ' Additional information on ambient pollution during the follow-up period was extracted from the AIRS database as quarterly mean values for each routinely monitored pollutant for 1982 through 1998. All quarterly averages met summary criteria imposed by'the Environmental Protection Agency and were based on observations made on at least 50% of the scheduled sampling days at each site. The quarterly mean values for all" stations in each metropolitan area were calculated across the study years using daily average values for each pollutant except ozone. For ozone, daily 1-hour maximums were used and were calculated for the full year and for the third quarter only (ie, July, August, September). While gaseous pollutants generally had recorded data throughout the entire follow-up period of Interest, the particulate matter monitoring protocol changed in the late 1980s from total suspended particles to particles measuring less than 10 ~m in diameter (PM lO), resulting in the majority of total suspended particle data being available in the early to mid-1980s and PM lO data being mostly available In the early to mid-1990s.

As a consequence of the new PM2.
5 standard, a large number of sites began collecting PM2,s data in 1999. Dally PM 2,s data were extracted from the AIRS database for 1999 and the first 3 quarters of 2000. For each site, quarterly averages for each of the 2 years were computed. The 4 quarters were averaged when at least 1 of the 2 corresponding quarters for each year had at least 50% of the sixth-day samples and at least 45 total sampling days available. Measurements were averaged first by site and then by metropolitan area. Although no network of PM 2.

S monitoring existed in the United States between the early 1980s and the late 1990s, the integrated average of PM 2.

S concentrations during the period was estimated by averaging the PM 2 .

S concentration for
early and later periods.

Mean sulfate concentrations for 1980-1981 were available for many cities based on data from the Inhalable Particle Monitoring Network and the National Aerometric Database. Recognizing that sulfate was artifactually overestimated due to glass fiber filters used at that time, season and region-specific adjustments were made." Since few states analyzed particulate samples for sulfates after the early 1980s, individual states were directly contacted for data regarding filter use. Ion chromatography was used to analyze PM lO filters and this data could be obtained from metropolitan areas across the United States. Filters were collected for a single reference year (1990) in the middle of the 1982-1998 study period. The use of quartz filters virtually eliminated the historical overestimation of sulfate. Mean sulfate concentrations for 1990 were estimated using sulfate ffom AIRS, data reported directly from individual states, and analysis of archived filters.

Statistical AnalYSis
The basic statistical approach used in this analysis is an extension of the standard Cox proportional hazards survival model,21 which has been used for risk estimates of pollution-relate? mortality in previous longitudinal cohort studies,iS-16 The standard Cox model implicitly assumes that observations are statistically independent after controlling for available risk factors, resulting in 2 http://jama.ama-assn. org/cgi/ contentifulll28 7/9/1132 '"t 11" I ..... r>."~ ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1103, Packet Page 1431 · JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long·term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002~ ... Page 5 of 23 o
....
co
~
concerns with regard to risk estimates of pollution-related mortality.22 First, if the assumption of statistical independence is not valid, the uncertainty in the risk estimates of pollution·related mortality may be misstated. Second, even after controlling for available risk factors, survival times of participants living in communities closer together may be more similar than participants living in communities farther apart, which results In spatial autocorrelation. If this spatial autocorrelation is due to missing or systematically mismeasured risk factors that are spatially correlated with air pollution, then the risk estimates of pollution-related mortality may be biased due to Inadequate control of these factors. Therefore, in this analysis, the Cox proportional hazards model was extended by incorporating a spatial random-effects component, which provided accurate estimates of the uncertainty of effect estimates. The model also evaluated spatial autocorrelation and incorporated a nonparametric spatial smooth component (to account for unexplained spatial structure). A more detailed description of this modeling approach Is provided elsewhere. 22 The baseline analysis in this study estimated adjusted relative risk (RR) ratios for mortality by using a Cox proportional hazards model with Inclusion of a metropolitan-based random-effects component. Model fitting Involved a 2-stage process. In the first stage, survival data were modeled using the standard Cox proportional hazards model, including individual level covariates and indicator variables for each metropolitan area (without pollution variables). Output from stage 1 provided estimates of the metropolitan-specific logarithm of the RRs of mortality (relative to an arbitrary reference community), which were adjusted for individual risk factors. The correlation between these values, which was induced by using the same reference community, was then removed. 23 In the second stage, the estimates of adjusted metropolitan-specific health ·responses were related to fine particulate air pollution using a linear random-effects regression model.24 The time variable used in the models was survival time from the date of enrollment. Survival times of participants who did not die were censored at the end of the study period. To control for age, sex, and race, all of the models were stratified by 1-year age categories, sex, and race (white vs other), which allowed each category to have its own baseline hazard. Models were estimated for all-cause mortality and for 3 separate mortality categories: cardiopulmonary (ICD-9 401-440 and 460-519), lung cancer (ICD-9 162), and all others.

Models were estimated separately for each of the 3 fine particle variables, PM2.

S (1979-1983), PM 2.

S (1999-2000), and PMz.
s
(average). IndiVidual level covarlates were included in the models to adjust for various important individual risk factors. All of these variables were classified as either indicator (ie, yes/no, binary, dummy) variables or continuous variables. Variables used to control for tobacco smoke, for example, Included both Indicator and continuous variables. The smoking Indicator variables included: current Cigarette smoker, former Cigarette smoker, and a pipe or cigar smoker only (all vs never smoking) along with indicator variables for starting smoking before or after age 18 years. The continuous smoking variables Included: current smoker's years of smoking, current smoker's years of smoking squared, current smoker's Cigarettes per day, current smoker's cigarettes per day squared, former smoker's years of smoking, former smoker's years of smoking squared, former smoker's Cigarettes per day, former smoker's Cigarettes per day squared, and the number of hours per day exposed to passive cigarette smoke .

To control for education, 2 indicator variables, which indicated completion of high school or education beyond high school, were included. Marital status variables included indicator variables for single and other vs married. Both body mass index (BMI) values and BMI values squared were included as continuous varr'ables. Indicator variables for beer, liquor, and wine drinkers and http://j ama.ama-assn.orglcgil contentifull/28 719/ 113 2 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1104, Packet Page 1432 o
....
(»
.I)a.
en
_ JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-tenn Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002, ... Page 6 of 23 nonresponders vs nondrinkers were Included to adjust for alcohol consumption. Occupational exposure was controlled for using various indicator variables: regular occupational exposure to asbestos, chemicals/acids/solvents, coal or stone dusts, coal tar/pitch/asphalt, diesel engine exhaust, or formaldehyde, and additional indicator variables that indicated 9 different rankings of an occupational di.rtiness index that has been developed and described elsewhere. 1?, 25 Two diet indices that accounted for fat consumption and consumption of vegetables, citrus, and high-fiber grains were derived based on Information given in the enrollment questionnaire. 18 Qulntile indicator variables for each of these diet indices were also included in the models. 's In addition to the baseline analysis, several additional sets of analysis were conducted. First, to more fully evaluate the shape of the concentration-response function, a robust locally weighted regression smoother26 (within the generalized additive model framework27) was used to estimate the relationship between particulate air pollution and mortality in the second stage of model fitting. Second, the sensitivity of the fine particle mortality risk estimates compared with alternative modeling approaches and assumptions was evaluated. Standard Cox proportional hazards models were fit to the data including particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality and sequentially adding (in a controlled forward stepwise process) groups of variables to controrfor smoking, education, marital status, BMI, alcohol consumption, occupatlo.nal exposures, and diet.

In addition, to evaluate the sensitivity of the estimated pollution effect While more aggressively controlling for spatial differences in mortality, a 2-dimensional term to account for spatial trends was added to the models and was estimated using a locally weighted regression smoother. The "span" parameter, which controls the complexity of the surface smooth, was set at 3 different settings to allow for increasingly aggressive fitting of the spatial structure. These Included a default span of 50%, the span that resulted in the lowest unexplained variance In mortality rate between metropolitan areas, and the span that resulted In the strongest evidence (highest P value) to suggest no reSidual spatial structure. The risk estimates and SEs (and thus the confidence Intervals) were estimated using generalized additive modeling27 with S-Plus statistical software,2s which provides unbiased effect estimates, but may underestimate SEs if there is significant spatial autocorrelation and significant correlations between air pollution and the smoothed surface of mortality. Therefore, eVidence of spatial autocorrelation was carefully evaluated and tested using the Bartlett test.29 The correlations of residual mortality with distance between metropolitan areas were graphically examined.

Analyses were also conducted of effect modification by age, sex, smoking status, occupational exposure, and education. Finally, models were fit using a variety of alternative pollution indices, including gaseous pollutants. Specifically, models were estimated separately for each of the pollution variables listed in Table 1, while also Including all of the other risk factor variables.

RESULTS
Fine particulate air pollution generally declined in the United States during the follow-up period of this study. Figure 1 plots mean PM 2.
5 concentrations for 1999:2000 over mean PM2.
5 concentrations for 1979-
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifuIll287/911132
Jump to Section
· Top
· IntroductIon
• Methods
'i 11 ('l !,",(".,eATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1105, Packet Page 1433 o
....
~
,JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002, ... Page 7 of 23 1983 for the 51 cities in which paired data were available. The concentrations of PM 2 5 were lower in 1999- Results , . Comment 2000 than in 1979"1983 for most cities, with the largest reduction observed in the cities with the highest . Author information concentrations of pollution during 1979-1983. Mean PM2. 5 levels in the 2 periods were highly correlated (r . References = 0.78). The rank ordering of cities by relative pollution levels remained nearly the same. Therefore, the relative levels of fine particle concentrations were similar whether based on measurements at the beginning of the study period, shortly foilowing the study period, or an average of the 2.
so
os·
I",
§
::. 15
i '0·
,
o o
,;"~'r:,~i~§:;";'S "~b'~ ~ , .. 0.71'>
" "
:0 .,5 ~ ~ ;,:)
l'Mu.l 1'2iv,:r\)rol
View larger version (28K):
[in this window)
[in a new window]
Figure 1. Mean Fine Particies Measuring Less Than 2.5 ~m in Diameter (PM2. s)
Mean PM 2.
s concentrations in micrograms per meters cubed for 1999-2000 are. plotted along with concentrations for 1979-1983 for the 51 metropolitan areas with paired pollution data. The dotted line is a reference 45°"equality line.

As reported in Table 2, all 3 indices of fine particulate air pollution were associated with all-cause, cardiopulmonary·, and lung cancer mortality, but not mortality from all other causes combined. Figure 2 presents the nonparametric smoothed exposure response relationships between cause-specific mortality and PM 2. 5 (average). The log RRs for all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality increased across the gradient of fine particulate matter. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the associations were not significantly different from linear associations (P>.20).

View this table:
(In this window]
[In a new window)
Table 2. Adjusted Mortality Relative Risk (RR) Associated With a 10-~g/m3 Change In Fine Particles Measuring Less Than 2.5 ~m in Diameter
http://jama.ama-assn.orglcgilcontentlfI1Jl1287/9/1132 ")/1 {)nnn.:; ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1106, Packet Page 1434 o
...
co
~
CO
• JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002; ... Page 8 of 23 ,p
'£ "'~
i::
, .. i ~:
~~~
..... , .....
,'--
.......................
~ .. ".-
View larger version (29K):
(in this w)ndow)
[in a new window]
Figure 2. Nonparametric Smoothed Exposure Response Relationship Vertical lines along x-axes indicate rug or frequency plot of mean fine particulate pollution; PM 2.

S' mean fine particles measuring less than 2.5 ~m in diameter; RR, relative risk; and CI, confidence Interval.

The fine particle mortality RR ratios from various alternative modeling approaches and assumptions are presented In Figure 3.

After controlling for smoking, education, and marital status, the controlled forward stepwise inclusion of additional covarlates had little influence on the estimated associations with fine particulate air pollution on cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality. As expected, Cigarette smoking was highly significantly associated with elevated risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality (P<.OOl). Estimated RRs for an average current smoker (men and women combined, 22 cigarettes/day for 33.5 years, with initiation before age 18 years) were equal to 2.58, 2.89, and 14.80 for all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Statistically significant, but substantially smaller and less robust associations, were also observed for education, marital status, 8MI, alcohol consumption, occupational exposure, and diet variables. Although many of these covariates were also statistically associated with mortality, the risk estimates of pollution-related mortality were not highly sensitive to the inclusion of these additional covarlates.

Figure 3. Mortality Relative Risk (RR) Ratio Associated With 10-~g/m3 Differences of PM 2.
5 Concentrations
Data presented are for 1979-1983 for the different causes of death, with various levels of controlling for individual risk factors, and using alternative modeling approaches. The 3 models with spatial smoothing allow for increasingly aggressive fitting of the spatial structure. Plus sign Indicates model included previous variables (ie, smoking included stratification by age, sex, and race); PM2.
5 , mean fine particles measuring less than 2.5
um In diameter; and cr, confidence interval.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cg;/contentifull/287/9/1132 ..., 11 f'I/"f'I('l::

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1107, Packet Page 1435 o
.....

CI)
~
• JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 2002; ... Page 9 of 23 I: . .
1': '
I" ,-
i: .
w-::s:"'::.~-;; .. ..!.. - == ,= -=..-
View larger version (141<):
[in this wIndow]
(in a new window]
Figure 3 also demonstrates that the introduction of the random-effects component to the model resulted in larger SEs of the estimates and, therefore, somewhat wider 95% confidence intervals. There was no evidence of statistically significant spatial autocorrelation in the survival data based on the Bartlett test (P>.2D) after controlling for fine particulate air pollution and the various individual risk factors. Furthermore, graphical examination of the correlations of the residual mortality with distance between metropolitan areas did not reveal significant spatial autocorrelation (reSUlts not shown). Nevertheless, the incorporation of spatial smoothing was included to further investigate the robustness of the estimated particulate pollution effect. Effect estimates were not highly sensitive to the incorporation of spatial smoothing to account for regional clustering or other spatial patterns in the data.

Figure 4 presents fine particle air pollution-related mortality RR ratios after stratifying by age, sex, education, and smoking status, and adjusting for all other risk factors. The differences across age and sex strata were not generally consistent or statistically significant. However, a consistent pattern emerged from this stratified analysis: the association with particulate pollution was stronger for both cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality for participants with less education. Also, for both cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality, the RR estimates were higher for nonsmokers.

Figure 4. Adjusted Mortality Relative Risk (RR) Ratio Associated With 10-~g/m3 Differences of PM 2.
5 Concentrations
http://j ama.ama-assn.orgl cgi/contentlfull/28 7/9/113 2 ')11 nnnn::.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1108, Packet Page 1436 , JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 .. : Page 10 of 23 o
....
co
(II
o
i3; .i \ : ; I.", .: •• 1
. :~
f:.: ! ~ ! . ; ,;: '
::,~-
." :.'):
~
ii. ", " '., ;, . .. ~ --: .::.~
~
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[In a new window]
Data presented are for 1979-1983 for the different causes of death stratified by age, sex, education, and smoking status. PM 2•
5 indicates mean fine particles measuring less than

2.5 um in diameter; CI, confidence interval .

Figure 5 summarizes the associations between mortality risk and air pollutant concentrations listed in Table 1. Statistically significant and relatively consistent mortality associations existed for all measures of fine particulate exposure, including PM,.5 and sulfate particles, Weaker less consistent mortality associations were observed with PM10 and PM 1S' Measures of the coarse particle fraction (PM 1S'

2.s) and total suspended partieies were not consistently associated with mortality, Of the gaseous pollutants, only sulfur dioxide was associated with elevated mortality risk. Interestingly, measures of PM2,s were associated with all-cause cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, but not with all other mortality, However, sulfur oxide pollution Cas measured by sulfate particles and/or sulfur dioxide) was significantly associated with mortality from all other causes In addition to all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, .

Figure S. Adjusted Mortality Relative Risk CRR) Ratio Evaluated at Subject-Weighted Mean Concentrations
PM 2,S indicates particles measuring less than 2.5 um in diameter; PMlO, particles measuring less than 10 um in diameter; PM15, particles measuring less than 15 um in diameter; PM1S' 2'S' particles measuring between 2.5 and 15 um in diameter; and cr, confidence interval.
http://jama,ama-assn,org/cgi/contentifuIl/287/911132 "')/1 n/"'lfirH' ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1109, Packet Page 1437 ,JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 .. : Page 11 of23 c
.....
= C1I
.....
1~; .. , , .' ~ ~ , .

I:~ : , , ' ~ . . _ . r "
r~' ..

L:
';;:':' .
/:.,.':' /~,///~::' / ~
, '..
. .,
'/ '/ ,. .... .,./:.~
::; ~ ~-
View larger version (16K):
(in thIs Window)
[in a new window]

COMMENT
This study demonstrated associations between ambient fine particulate air pollution and elevated risks of both cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality. Each 10-~g/m3 elevation in long-term average PM 2,s ambient concentrations was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively, although the magnitude of the effect somewhat depended on the time frame of pollution monitoring. In addition, this analysis addresses many of the important questions concerning the earlier, more limited analysis of the large CPS-I! cohort, including the following issues.

Jump to Section
-Top
· lntroductlon
• MethOds
• Results
· Comment
• Author 'Information
· References
First, does the apparent association between pollution and mortality persist with longer follow-up and as the cohort ages and dies? The present analysis more than doubled the follow-up time to more than 16 years, resulting In approximately triple the number of deaths, yet the associations between pollution and mortality persisted.

Second, can the association between fine particulate air pollution and Increased cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality be due to Inadequate control of important indiVidual risk factors? After aggressively controlling for smoking, the estimated fine particulate pollution effect on mortality was remarkably robust. When the analysis was stratified by smoking status, the estimated pollution effect on both cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality was strongest for never smokers vs former or current smokers. This analysis also controlled for education, marital status, BMI, and alcohol consumption. This analysis used improved variables to control for occupational exposures and Incorporated diet variables that accounted for total fat consumption, as well as for http://j ama.ama-assn. orgl cgil contentlfull!28 7 19/1 132 "')111'1/"'lr.r.t::
. :

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1110, Packet Page 1438 • JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 .. : Page 12 of23 o
...;0.

CICI
01 ....,
consumption of vegetables, citrus, and high-fiber grains. The mortality associations with fine particulate air pollution were largely unaffected by the inclusion of these individual risk factors in the models. The data on smoking and other individual risk factors, however, were obtained directly by questionnaire at time of enrollment and do not reflect changes that may have occurred following enrollment. The lack of risk factor follow-up data results in some misclassification of exposure, reduces the precision of control for risk factors, and constrains our ability to differentiate time dependency.

Third, are the associations between fine particulate air pollution and mortality due to regional or other spatial differences that are not adequately controlled for In the analysis? If there are unmeasured or Inadequately modeled risk factors that are different across locations, then spatial clustering will occur. If this clustering is independent or random across metropolitan areas, then the spatial clUstering can be modeled by adding a random-effects component to the Cox proportional hazards model as was done in our analYSis. The clustering may not be independent or random across metropolitan areas due to inadequately measured or modeled risk factors (either individual or ecological). If these inadequately measured or modeled risk factors are also spatially correlated with air pollution, then biased pollution effects estima'tes may occur due to confounding. However, in this analysis, significant spatial autocorrelation was not observed after controlling for fine particulate air pollution and the various individual risk factors. Furthermore, to minimize any potential confounding bias, sensitivity analyses, which directly modeled spatial trends using nonparametric smoothing techniques, were conducted, A contribution of this analysis is that It included the incorporation of both random effects and nonparametric spatial smoothing components to the Cox proportional hazards model. Even after accounting for random effects across metropolitan areas and aggressively modeling a spatial structure that accounts for regional differences, the association between fine particulate air pollution and cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality persists.

Fourth, is mortality associated primarily with fine particulate air pollution or is mortality also associated with other measures of particulate air pollution, such as PM ,O' total suspended particles, or with various gaseous pollutants? Elevated mortality'risks were associated primarily with measures of fine particulate and sulfur oxide pollution. Coarse particles and gaseous pollutants, except for sulfur dioxide, were generally not significantly associated with elevated mortality risk.

Fifth, what is the shape of the concentration-response function? Within the range of pollution observed in this analYSis, the concentration-response function appears to be monotonic and nearly linear. However, this does not preclude a leveling off (or even steepening) at much higher levels of air pollution.

Sixth, how large is the estimated mortality effect of exposure to fine particulate air pollution relative to other risk factors? A detailed description and interpretation of the many individual risk factors that are controlled for in the analysiS goes well beyond the scope of this report. However, the mortality risk associated with cigarette smoking has been well documented using the cps-n cohort. '6 The risk imposed by exposure to fine particulate air pollution is obViously much smaller than the risk of Cigarette smoking. Another risk factor that has been well documented using the CPS-I! cohort data is body mass as measured by 6MI. 30 The Word Health Organization has categorized BM! values between 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 as normal; 25-29.9 kg/m2, grade 1 overweight; 30-39.9 kg/m2; grade 2 overweight; and 40 kg/m2 or higher, grade 3 overweight,31 In the present analysis, BM! http://jama.arna-assn,org/cgifcontenVfullf287f9fl132 ""1/1 f"l/"lf'l01:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1111, Packet Page 1439 _ JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 .... Page 13 of23 values and 8MI values squared were included in the proportional hazards models_ Consistent with previous ACS analysls,30 BMI was significantly associated with mortality, optimal BMI was between approximately 23.S and 24.9 kg/m2 , and the RR of mortality for different BMI values relative to the optimal were dependent on sex and smoking status. For example, the RRs associated with 8MI values between 30.0 and 31.9 kg/m2(vS optimal) would be up to approximately 1.33 for never smo~ers. Based on these calculations, mortality risks associated with fine particulate air pollution at .Ievels found in more polluted US metropolitan areas are less than those associated with substantial obesity (grade 3 overweight), but comparable with the estimated effect of being moderately overweight (grade 1 to 2).

In conclusion, the findings of this study provide the strongest evidence to date that long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution common to many metropolitan areas is an important risk factor for cardiopulmonary mortality. In addition, the large cohort and extended follow-up have provided an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate associations between air pollution and lung cancer mortality. Elevated fine particulate air pollution exposures Were associated with significant Increases in lung cancer mortality. Although potential effects of other unaccounted for factors cannot be excluded with certainty, the aSSOCiations between fine particulate air pollution and lung cancer mortality, as well as cardiopulmonary mortality, are observed even after controlling for cigarette smoking, BMI, diet, occupational exposure, other individual risk factors, and after controlling for regional and other spatial differences.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Contributions: study concept and design: Pope, Burnett, Krewski, Thurston.

Acquisition of data: Thun, Calle, Krewski, Ito, Thurston.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Pope, Burnett, Krewski, Thurston.

Drafting of the manuscript: Pope, Burnett, Ito, Thurston.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Pope, Thun, Calle, Krewski, Thurston.

Jump to Section
· Top
· Introduction
· Methods
• Results
· Comment
· Author lnformation
· References
~ Statistical expertise: Pope, Burnett, Krewski.

CD
UI
(,.) Obtained funding: Pope, Thun, Thurston.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Pope, Call.e, Krewski, Ito, Thurston. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifull/287/9/1132 ?/l ()I?()(), ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1112, Packet Page 1440 .. JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6,200.:. Page 14 of23 Study supervision: Pope, Krewskl.

Funding/Support: The research for this article was supported largely by grant ES09560-01Al from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health SCien"ces (NIEHS). It was also supported in part by grant ES00260 from the New York University Center/NIEHS, grant R-827351 from the Environmental Protection Agency PM Health Effects Research Center, and funding from the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa.

Acknowledgment: We thank Morton Lippmann, PhD, for his help in developing the research grant application and various comments and suggestions and Yuanli Shi, MD, for computer programming and statistical analysis support.

Corresponding Author and Reprints: C. Arden Pope III, PhD, Department of Economics, Brigham Young University, 142 FOB, Provo, UT 84602 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Author Affiliations: Brigham Young UniverSity, Provo, Utah (Dr Pope); Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario (Dr Burnett); University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario (Drs Burnett and Krewskl); American Cancer Soi;iety, Atlanta, Ga (Drs Thun and Calle); and New York University School of Medicine, Tuxedo, NY (Drs Ito and Thurston).

REFERENCES

1. Firket J. The cause of the symptoms found in the Meuse Valley during the fog of December, 1930. 8ull Acad R Med 8elgium. 1931;11:683-741.

2. Ciocco A, Thompson DJ. A follow-up of Donora ten years after: methodology and findings. Am J Public Health. 1961;51:155-164.

3. Logan WPD, Glasg MD.-Mortality in London fog incident, 1952. Lancet. 1953;1:336-338.

4. Pope III CA, Dockery DW. Epidemiology of particle effects. In: Holgate ST, Koren H, Maynard R, Samet J, eds. Air Pollution and Health. London, England: Academic Press; 1999:673-705.

5. Kaiser J. Showdown over clean air science. Science. 1997;277:466-469. FULL TEXT Jump to Section
• Top
· Introduction
• Methods·
• Results
• Comment
• AuthOr information
• References

6. World Health Organization-European Region. Update and Revision of the Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization-European Region; 1995. Document EUR/ICP/EHAZ 94 OS/PB01.

7. CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Particulate Q Matter. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Works and Government Services; 1998. Category, No. H46-2/98-220 • .... 0) 8. Committee of the Enyironmental and Occupational Health Assembly of the American Thoracic SOCiety. Health effects of outdoor ~ air pollution. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;153:3-50. ABSTRACT

9. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution. Non-8iological Particles and Health. London, England: United Kingdom Dept 01 Health; 1995. •
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentifuIll287/9/1132 'i /1 ()/"I()l), ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1113, Packet Page 1441 o
....
00 en
en
.. lAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-tenn EXposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 .. ; Page 15 of23

10. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria 'for Particulate Matter. Washington, DC: ~nvlronmental Protection Agency: 1996. Document ~PA/600/P-95/001cf.

11. Samet JM, Dominici F, Currlero FC, Coursac I, Zeger SL. Fine particulate air pollution and mortality In 20 US cities. N Engl] Med. 2000;343: 1742-1749. ABSTRACTIFULL TEXT

12. National Research Council. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter, I: Immediate Priorities and a Long-Range Research Portfolio. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998.

13. National Research Council. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter, III: Early Research Progress. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press: 2001.

14. Whitman v American Trucking Associations Inc, 532 US 457 (2001).

15. Dockery DW, Pope 1I! CA, Xu X, et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six US cities. N Engl ] Med. 1993:329:1753-1759. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

16. Pope III CA, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, et al. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality In a prospective study of US adults. Am ] Respir Crit Care Med. 1995:151:669-674. ABSTRACT

17. Krewskl D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, et al. Reanalysis of the Harvard SI» Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Special Report. Cambridge, Mass: Health Effects Institute; 2000.

18. Chao A, Thun MJ, Jacobs E, Henley SJ, Rodriguez C, Calle ~E. Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer mortality In the Cancer Prevention Study I!. ] Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1888-1896. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT

19. Calle EE, Terrell DD. Utility of the National Death Index for ascertainment of mortality among Cancer Prevention Study II partiCipants. Am] Epidemiol. 1993;137:235-241. ABSTRACT

20. US Postal Service. 1989 National Five Digit Zip Code and Post Office Directory. Washington, DC: National Information Data Center; 1989.

21. Fleming TR, Harrington DP. Counting Processes and Survival AnalysiS. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1991.

22. Burnett R, Ma R, Jerrett M, et al. The spatial association between community air pollution and mortality: a new method of analyzing correlated geographic cohort data. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(suppl 3):375-380.

23. Easton DF, Peto J, Babiker GAG. Floating absolute risk: an alternative to relative risk in survival and case-control analysis avoiding an arbitrary reference group. Stat Med. 1991;10:1025-1035. lSI I MEDLlNE

24. Burnett RT, Ross WH, Krewskl D. Non-linear mixed regression models. Environmetrics. 1995;6:85-99. lSI

25. Siemiatycki J, Nadon L, Lakhani R, Beegie D, Geerin M. Exposure assessment. In: Siemiatycki J, ed. Risk Factors for Cancer in the Workplace. Baton Rouge, La: CRC Press; 1991:45-114.

26. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988:74:829-836.

27. Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Generalized Additive Models. London, England: Chapman & Hall; 1990 .

28. S-Plus 2000 Programmer's Guide. Seattle, Wash: Math 50ft: 2000.

29. Priestly MB. Spectral Analysis and Time Series. London, England: Academic Press; 1981,

30. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CVj Jr. Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of US adults.

N Engl ] Med. 1999;341:1097-1105. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifull/287/9/1132 ")11 ('t/'"'lf'l/)l; ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1114, Packet Page 1442 o
.....
()I)
C1I
0'1
, JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200... Page 16 of 23

31. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry: report of a WHO expert committee. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1995;854:1-452, lSI I MWllNE

RELATED ARTICLES IN JAMA
This Week in JAMA
JAMA. 2002;287:1079.

FULL TEXT
March 6, '2002
JAMA. 2002;287:1193-1194.

EXTRACT I FULL TE,XT

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
InfJammation, Neurod·egenerative Diseases, and Environmental Exposures

CAMPBELL
Annals NYAS Online 2004;1035:117-132.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Breast Cancer Risk and Exposure in Early Life to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Using Total Suspended Particulates as a Proxy Measure
Bonner et ai,
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14:53-60,

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Effects of air pollution on blood pressure and heart rate variability: a panel study of vehicular traffic controllers in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil
de Paula Santos et al.

Eur Heart Journal 2005;'26:193-200.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Interactions between CYP1Al polymorphisms and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the modulation of lymphocyte bulky DNA adducts and chromosomal aberrations Georgiadis et al.

Carcinogenesis 2005; 26: 93-101.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
http://jarna.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentifull/287/9/1132 "')/1 r./...,nrv:.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1115, Packet Page 1443 · JAMA __ Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 .. ; Page 17 of23 o
....
0)
UI
""
Ambient Air Pollution: Health Hazards to Children
Committee on Environmental Health
Pediatrics 2004;114:1699-1707.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Accuracy and Repeatability of Commercial Geocoding
Whitsel et al.

Am. J. Epidemio!. 2004;160:1023-1029.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Apheis: public health Impact of PM10 in 19 European cities Medina et al.

J Epidemio! Community Health 2004;58:831-836.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Air Pollution and Health -- Good News and Bad
Pope
N Eng! ] Med 2004;351:1132-ll34.

FULL TEXT
What is responsible for the carcinogenicity of PM2.5?
Harrison et al.

Occup Environ Med 2004;61:799-805.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Fine particles and lung cancer
Forastlere
Occup Environ Med 2004;61:797-798.

FULL TEXT
Transfer of particulate matter pollution from smoking to non-smoking coaches: the explanation for the smoking ban on Italian trains .
lnvernizzi et al.

Tab Contra! 2004;13:319-320.

FULL TEXT
Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective lnvernizzi et al.

Tob Contro!2004;13:219-221.

ABSTRACT! FULL TEXT
http://j '!J'Ila.'!J'Ila-assn. orgl cgil contentifull/287/9/1132 '") /1 ()f"'>(){H.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1116, Packet Page 1444 o
....
00 en
00 _. JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200.:. Page 18 of 23 DEVELo.PMENT OF A PREDICTIVE Mo.DEL FOR ROSS RIVER VIRUS DISEASE IN BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA HU et al.

Am] Trop Med Hyg 2004;71:129-137.

ABSTRACT I FU LL TEXT
o.ccupational and environmental exposures and lung cancer in an industrialised area in Italy Fano et al.

Occup Environ Med 2004;61:757-763.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Particulate air pollution and hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory diseases: are the elderly at greater risk? Anderson et al.

Eur Respir ] 2003;21:39S-46s.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
o.ral communications
) Epidemiol Community He&lth 2004;58:A3-A63.

FULL TEXT
Traffic Air Pollution and Mortality Rate Advancement Periods Finkelstein et al.

Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004;160:173-177.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association Brook et al.

Circulation 2004;109:2655-2671.

ABSTRACT I FU LL TEXT
Reduction of Particulate Air Pollution Lowers the Risk of Heritable Mutations in Mice Somers et al.

Science 2004;304:1008-1010.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Problems in Deciding the Effect of the Airborne Particulate Load in Hospitals on Patient Health HM~ns .

Indoor and Suitt Environment 2003;12:69-72.

ABSTRACT
http://jarna.arna-assn.org/cgilcontentifull/287/9/1132 ,)/111!')nn.::; ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1117, Packet Page 1445 , JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 ... Page 19 of23 Cost Analysis of the Built Environment: The Case of Bike and Pedestrian Trials in Lincoln, Neb Wang et al.

Am J Public Health 2004;94:549-553.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Association of Higher Levels of Ambient Criteria Pollutants with Impaired Cardiac Autonomic Control: A Populationbased Study .

Liao etal.

Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004;159:768-777.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Effect of Ambient Air Pollution on Pulmonary Exacerbations and Lung Function in Cystic Fibrosis Goss et al.

Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;169:816-821.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Effects of sham air and cigarette smoke on AS49 lung cells: implications for iron-mediated oxidative damage Mayo et al.

Am. J. Physiol. 2004;286:L866-876.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
TRPVl receptors mediate particulate matter-induced apoptosis Agopyan et al.

Am. J. Physiol. 2004;286:L563-572.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Contribution of environmental factors to cancer risk
Boffetta and Nyberg
Br Med Bull 2003;68:71-94.

ABSTRACT i FULL TEXT
Ambient air pollution and health
Katsouyanni
Br Med Bull 2003;68:143-156.
~ ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
CO
~ Predicted health impacts of urban air quality management MindeJl and Joffe
J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58: 103-113.

ABSTRACT! FULL TEXT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifull/287/9/1132 'i f1 nr)nn~ ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1118, Packet Page 1446 Q
....
(1)
en
Q
.' JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-tenn Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200.;. Page 20 of 23 Cardiovascular pathophysiology'of environmental pollutants Bhatnagar
Am.]. PhySiol. 2004;286:H479-485.

FULL TEXT
Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution: Epidemiological Evidence of General Pathophysiological Pathways of Disease
Pope et al.

Circulation 2004;109:71-77.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Pulmonary Inflammation and Thrombogenicity Caused by Diesel Particles in Hamsters: Role of Histamine Nemmar et al.

Am) Respir Crit Care Ned 2003; 168: 1366-1372..

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Lung cancer and air pollution: a 27 year follow up of 16 209 Norwegian men Nafstad et al.

Thorax 2003;58:1071-1076.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Air pollution and lung cancer: what more do we need to know? Cohen
Thorax 2003;58:1010-1012.

FULL TEXT
Why cardiologists should be interested in air pollution Routledge et al.

Heart 2003;89:1383-1388.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Oxidative DNA damage and defence gene expression in the mouse lung after short-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles by inhalation .

Risom et al.

Carcinogenesis 2003;24: 1847-1852.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Changes in lung permeability and lung mechanics accompany homeostatic instability in senescent mice Tankersley et al.
). Appl. Physiol. 2003;95:1681-1687.
http://jama.arna-assn.orgicgiicontentlfuIl1287/9/l 132 ?fl nnnn, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1119, Packet Page 1447 o
....

CIO
0)
....
• lAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-tenn Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6, 200 ... Page 21 of23

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Relation between Income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study Finkelstein et al.

Can Med Assoc J 2003; 169:397-402.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Air Pollution Particles Produce Airway Wall Remodeling in Rat Tracheal Explants Dal et al.

Am) Respir Cell Mol Bioi 2003;29:352-358.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Mortality from Obstructive Lung Diseases and Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons among Asphalt Workers
Burstyn et al.

Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003; 158;468-478.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Particulate Matter Induces Alveolar Epithelial Cell DNA Damage and Apoptosis: Role of Free Radicals and the Mitochondria
Upadhyay et al.

Am) Respir Cell Mol Bioi 2003;29:180-187.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Temporal variation of hydroxyl radical generation and S-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine formation by coarse and fine particulate matter
Shl et al.

Occup Environ Med 2003;60:315-321.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
The biological effects of coarse and fine particulate matter Donaldson
Occup Environ Med 2003;60;313-314.

FULL TEXT
Personal Exposure to PM2.S and Biomarkers of DNA Damage Sorensen et al.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12; 191-196.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
http;lljama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifull/287/9/1132 711 n17M, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1120, Packet Page 1448 ~ JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-tenn Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6,200." Page 22 of 23 o
....

CO
t:f)
N
Measuring the accumulated hazards of smoking: global and regional estimates for 2000 Ezzati and Lopez
Tab Control 2003:12:79-85.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Diesel Exhaust Particles in Lung Acutely Enhance Experimental Peripheral Thrombosis Nemmar el al.

Circulation 2003; 107: 1202-1208.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Primary Prevention Protects public Health mM~S .

Annals NYAS Online 2002;982:190-197.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Global Climate Change and Air Pollution: Common Origins With Common Solutions Bransford and Lai
JAMA 2002:287:2285-2285.

FULL TEXT
OTHER ARTICLES NOTED (Nov 01 to 18 Oct 02)
Evld Based Nurs 2003;6:e1-l.

FULL TEXT
Pollution-Related Mortality and Educational Level
Finkelstein et al.

JAMA 2002;288:830-830.

FULL TEXT
Quantification of health effects of exposure to air pollution Krzyzanowski el al.

Occup Environ Med 2002:59:791-793.

FULL TEXT
Mutagenicity and in Vivo Toxicity of Combined Particulate and Semivolatile Organic Fractions of Gasoline and Diesel Engine Emissions
Seagrave et al.

Toxieol. Sci. 2002;70:212-226.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
http://j ama. ama -assn.orgl cgil conlentlfulJ/287 !911 132 211 Onnl1'i ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1121, Packet Page 1449 · JAMA -- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, March 6,200 .... Page 23 of23 o
....

CO
Q)
W
How important is personal exposure assessment in the epidemiology of air pollutants? Cherrie
Occup Environ Ned 2002: 59:653-654.

FULL TEXT
Air Pollution: An Insidious and Pervasive Component of Cardiac Risk Verrier et al.

Circulation 2002:106:890-892.

FULL TEXT
On the Use of Generalized Additive Models in Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and Health Dominici et al.

Am. J. Epidemiol. 2002;156:193-2.03.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Expanding the health care debate
Suzuki
Can Ned Assoc} 2002; 166:1678-1679.

FULL TEXT
HOME I CURRENT ISSUE I PAST ISSUES [ COllECTIONS [ CME [ CAREERNET [ CONTACT us I HELP © 2002. lAMA &. Archives. All Rights Reser.red.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifull/287/9/1132 ? 11 Cll?nn.::

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1122, Packet Page 1450 • JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Chlldren With Asthma, October ... Page I of 16 JAMA&ARCHIVES Select Journal or Resource (:GO .(
JAMA SERRCH THIS JOURNRL: : .. _ .......... __ ... _ .... ···• .. · .. ••· .. ··---.. ·--·1 : I ;~ __ •• ,_"~ __ •. ,_,._''' ... ,_.~.~,, __ • _,~., ~_,_ •• _~., •• _"~,, •. ,.,.'"'~_ •• ,, __ • _,.I so TO AOVANCED SERRCH >
~ ~ .•. "."
The Jeurnalct the American r·lledical Assadatlon - To Promote the Science and Art of Medlcl"a and the Beti:l!l"'ment of the. Public Health '""",""1aW'''"''"'=''~~=-~'''''_~'''"''''-=~~''''_'''''=''''''''i1'"''''''''~l''''''''<'''''''''&'''''_ilff_~I'''''_ ~~B.£lll~~rEg3Bj!lt!?1t.t[~~J;~~?1I!:i.?,iR#'~1~'?$1-g~~~!f.4.i§~,lifl!~r:.1,R',llil&tetl.l~~~~);ltit'i";l!§J'i1~~1f.:;[~~Fi!=.~ . o
....

CO
2!
Access via PUR.CHASE ACCESS
Vol. 290 No. 14, October S, 2003
Original Contribution

TRBLE OF CONTENTS)
Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma
Janneane F. Gent, PhD; Elizabeth W. Triche, PhD; Theodore R. Holford, PhD; Kathleen Belanger, PhD; Michael B. Bracken, PhD; William S. Beckett, MD; Brian P. Leaderer, PhD JAMA. 2003;290:1859-1867.

ABSTRACT
Context Exposure to ozone and particulate matter of 2.5 ~m or less (PM.2. sl in air at levels above current US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards is a risk factor for respiratory symptoms in children with asthma.

Objective To examine simultaneous effects of ozone and PM 2.5 at levels below EPA standards on daily respiratory symptoms and rescue medication use among children with asthma.

Design, Setting, and Participants Daily respiratory symptoms and medication use were examined prospectively for 271 children younger than 12 years with physician·dlagnosed, active asthma residing in southern New England. Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone and PM2• 5 from April 1 through
September 30, 2001, was assessed using ozone (peak 1-hour and 8-hour) and 24-hour PM2,S' LogistiC regression analyses using generalized estimating equations were performed separately for maintenance Featured Link
• E~mail Alerts
Article Options
• Abstract
'PDF
• Send to a FrIend
• Related articles in this
Issue
• Similar articles In this
journal
Literature Track
• Add to File Drawer
• Download to Citation
Manager
• PubMed dtatlon
• Articles in PubMed by
·Gent JF
·Leaderer BP
• Articles that cite this
article
· lSI Web of Science (11)
• Contact me when this
article is cited
Topic Collections
, Asthma
• Allergy
• OccupatIonal and
Environmental Medicine
• Pediatrics
· Pediatrics, Other
• Topic Collection Alerts
medication users (n = 130) and nonusers (n = 141). Associations between pollutants (adjusted for temperature, controlling for http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentJfull/290114118 59?maxtoshow=&HITS= 1 O&hits= 1 O&R EST TT .TFnRM A T=AH"lltav'=O£..,.., 0 "'I/1,...,1'1(\{\1:' ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1123, Packet Page 1451 lAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October '" Page 2 of 16 o
....
eo
en
(.It
same- and previous-day levels) and respiratory symptoms and use of rescue medication were evaluated.

Main Outcome Measures Respiratory symptoms and rescue medication use recorded on calendars by subjects' mothers.

Results Mean (SD) levels were 59 (19) ppb (i-hour average) and 51 (16) ppb (8-hour average) for ozone and 13 (8) Jjg/m3 for PM2.5" In copollutant models, ozone level but not PM2.

S was significantly associated with respiratory symptoms and rescue medication use among children using maintenance medication; a 50-ppb increase in i-hour ozone was associated with Increased likelihood of wheeze (by 35%) and chest tightness (by 47%). The highest levels of ozone (i-hour or 8-hour averages) were associated with increased shortness of breath and rescue medication use. No Significant, exposure-dependent associations were observed for any outcome by any pollutant among children who did not use maintenance medication.

Conclusion Asthmatic children using maintenance medication are particularly vulnerable to ozone, controlling for exposure to fine particles, at levels below EPA standards.

INTRODUCTION
Children with asthma are particularly vulnerable to the adverse health effects of high levels of air pollution. Studies of children with asthma living in some of the most highly polluted regions of the world conclude that exposure to levels of ozone or particulate matter (especially particles =>2.5 ~m in diameter [PM2.
sll regularly in excess of US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards (120 ppb [l-hour average] and 80 ppb [8-hour average] for ozone and 65 ~g/m3 for 24-hour PM2.

S) significantly
enhances the risk of respiratory symptoms, asthma medication use, and reduced lung function. 1-S Jump to Section
• Top
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Comment'
• Author information
· References
Studies of children with asthma living In regions with levels of pollution within or near compliance with EPA air quality standards suggest that the current standards do not protect these more vulnerable members of the populatlon. 6-10 Asthma severity, as measured by symptoms, medication use, restrictions in activity, or use of medical services, has been shown to be affected by exposure to ozone (l-hour maximum measurement6·
10 or 8-hour average6-9), particles 10 ~m or smaller (PM 1o),5, 8 or PM 2 .

S (12-
hour total). 5 '
Of interest in many recent studies of children with asthma are the simultaneous effects of ozone and particulates on asthma severlty.n.s Simultaneous exposure to high levels of both ozone and PM 2. 5 (fine particles)2 or PM10(coarse partlcles)3 found in Mexico City, MexiCO, contributed to increased respiratory symptoms among children with asthma. In a region of lower pollution, asthma symptoms were associated with both ozone and course particles. 8 In the current study, we examined the simultaneous http://j ama.ama-assn.orgfcgilconlentifullf290f1411859?maxtoshow=&HITS;1 O&hits; 1 O&RES1)] .TFOR M A T=~f\, lltpvt=°/. ')')0 i/T{){'innC ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1124, Packet Page 1452 o
.....

CIO
en
en
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October ... Page 3 of 16 effects of ozone and fine particles on daily respiratory symptoms and rescue medication use of children with asthma residing in southern New England during spring and summer 2001.

METHODS
Participants
The study participants were 271 children from a cohort of families living In Connecticut and the Springfield area of Massachusetts who were participating in a study of asthma development. , 1-12 From 1997 through
1999, 1002 infants born to families with at least 1 child with physician-diagnosed asthma were enrolled in the original birth cohort. Beginning in 2000, eligible asthmatic siblings (1 per cohort family) were identified and invited to participate in a i-year prospective study of asthma severity. Eligibility criteria were that the Jump to Section
• Top
· Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Comment
• Author information
· References
child was younger than 12 years at the time of enrollment and had exhibited respiratory symptoms or used asthma medication within the previous 12 months. Included In the current analysis are subjects enrolled for all or part of the 183-day sampling period (April 1 through September 30, 2001), which Indudes the summertime, high-ozone pollution months in this region. Of 357 children identified as being'eligible for inclusion in the current analysis, 56 refused follow-up, 16 were lost to follow-up, and 14 withdrew before April 1, 2001, leaving a total of 271 (76%). The Human Investigation Committee of Yale University, New Haven,' Conn, approved this study, and all respondents (mothers of study subjects) gave Informed consent before participation.

Data Collection
Demographic Information and medical histories were collected during a home interview with the mother at enroliment. Daily respiratory symptoms (wheeze, persistent cough, chest tightness, shortness of breath) and medication use (maintenance medications, including inhaled or systemiC steroids, cromolyn sodium, and leukotrlene Inhibitors, and rescue medications, including bronchodilators) were recorded 6n symptom and medication calendars by the child's mother and collected through monthly telephone Interviews. Additional information about the previous 12 months was collected at an exit Interview (eg, dates the child had been away from the southern New England region during the study year).

Air Quality Assessment
Study subjects resided in a 6691-square mile area in Connecticut and the Springfield area of Massachusetts, All ambient air quality monitoring sites (14 sites for ozone, 10 in Connecticut and 4 in Massachusetts; 4 sites for daily PM 2. 5, 2 in Connecticut and
2 in Massachusetts; 13 temperature sites, 12 in Connecticut and 1 in Massachusetts) were located within a 52.S-mile radius centered at Southington, Conn (14 miles southwest of Hartford). The maximum distance between sites was 105. miles; the minimum distance was 4 miles. The Departments of EnVironmental Protection (DEPs) of Connecticut and Massachusetts provided measurements for hourly ozone concentrations and temperatures and daily 24-hour PM 2 .
5 (total PM2
.
5 accumulated during 24
http://jama.arna-assn.org/cgi/contentlfull/290114/1859?maxtoshow=&HITS=! O&hit~=l O&'RFST TT TFmn.r 6 T=.I"<;""o,,_OI 00_ "" MOOO_ ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1125, Packet Page 1453 o
....

CO
Q)
~
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October ... Page 4 of 16 hours). Since both ozone and fine particle pollutants, as well as meteorological variables, tend to be regional/' the maximum dally I-hour average (mean over 1 hour) and the 8-hour rolling average (mean over previous 8 hours) for ozone, daily PM2. 5 concentration, and maximum daily temperature were averaged across monitoring sites. Between-site correlation coefficients (Pearson r) were high for the 4 daily PM2.
5 sites (median r = 0.91; range, 0.84-0.95) and the 13 temperature sites (median r =

0.97; range, 0.85-0.99). There was more variability among the 14 ozone monitoring sites (median r = 0,83; range, 0,50-0,97 for the I-hour average; and median r = 0,81; range, 0.47-0,97 forthe 8-hour average), For technical details on ambient air quality monitoring, see the Web sites for the Connecticut DEPl4 and the Massachusetts DEP,15 Data Analysis
To examine the effects of ozone'and PM2.

S on children with different degrees of asthma severity, children were diVided into 2 groups: those who used any maintenance me,dication during the 183-day observation period (n = 130) and those who did not (n = 141), Use of maintenance medication was used as a proxy for asthma severity to avoid using the outcome measures (respiratory symptoms and reSCUe medication use) in the assessment of severity, Logistic regression analyses, using generalized estimating equations (PROC GENMOD with AR1 autoregressive structure In SAS statistical software)l6-18 and adjusted for maximum daily temperature, were used to evaluate the ass'ociation between levels of ozone and PM 2. 5, wlth presence or absence
of specific respiratory symptoms, or rescue medication use, Using a repeated-measures technique permitted each subject to serve' as his or her own control; therefore, personal variables (eg, race and other soclodemographlc factors) that would not change d.Urlng the study were not included in the models, Subgroup analysis, Which included either 17 160 observations (an average of 132 days of data for 130 users elf maintenance medication) or 19 035 observations (135 days for 141 nonusers of maintenance medication), focused directly on :the association between exposures and health effects.

Exposure variables were categorized into quintiles, then entered Into the model as dummy variables. The reference category for each was the lowest quintile. Both same-day and previous-day levels of ozone and PM 2,s were examined, Analyses were performed separately for each severity group and each outcome, In Single-pollutant models, a test for linear trend was performed by examining the model when the pollutant was entered as a continuous variable instead of as quintiles, In copollutant models, a test for goodness of fit was perfOrmed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic for logistic regression. Significance level for all tests was set at ,05.

RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Levels of ozone, PM 2.

S' and temperature from April throu_gh September 2001 are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. The EPA 1-hour standard (120 ppb) was exceeded on 3 days, and the 8-hour ozone standard Jump to Section
· Top
· Introduction
• Methods
, Results
• Comment
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentlfull!290!14!1859?maxtoshow=&HITS=1 O&hits= 1 O&RESI JT TFORM A T=.%!illltev'=0l. "0 '1!,n!~nf'lt; ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1126, Packet Page 1454 . JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October· ... Page 5 of 16 o
.-
c:a
en
c:a
(80 ppb) was exceeded on 10 days of the 183 days of observation. There were no days when the level of PM2•
S exceeded the EPA 24-hour standard of 65 ~g!m3. There was a strong correlation between ozone and fine particles (PM2.

S vs I-hour ayerage ozone r = 0,77 vs 8-hour average r = 0.74) (Table 2), • Author information
• References
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
.. -~:=~:::::-
i' ," j. :

I
i: ~
J.
i:

J
Table 1. 'Ozone, Particulate Matter of 2.5 ~m or Less (PM2,s)' and Temperature in Southern New England, April 1 to;September 30,2001
.,
.,
Figure. Daily Levels of Ozone (Both 1-Hour Average and 8-Hour Average), Particulate .

Matter of 2.5 ~m or Less (PM2,s)' and Dally Maximum Temperature, With Daily Prevalence of Respiratory Symptoms for Users of Asthma Maintenance Medication (n = 130) for Southern New England, April 1 through September 30, 2001 Dotted lines at 80 ppb and 120 ppb indicate Environmental Protection Agency standards for a-hour average and I-hour average ozone, respectively. Note that dally exposure levels shown here are the result of averaging over regional monitoring sites (14 ozone, 4 PM2,s' and 13 temperature sites).
...... "'.". ~ .. ,' "",'~-'.~'~ ... ~
View larger version (99K):
(In this wlndowJ
[In a new window]
View this table:
[In this window)
[in a new window]
Table 2. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Same Day and Previous Day Levels of Ozone and Particulate Matter of ~,S ~m or Less (PM 2.
s)
There were no significant differences between the users (n = 130) of maintenance medication and nonusers (n = 141) for mean (SD) age of study subjects (age on April 1, 2001, for users, 8,8 [2.0) years [range, 2.4-12,7 years); age of nonusers, 8,3 [2.2J years [range, 2.0-12,6 years); nest P = .71) or mean days of participation (mean participation for users, 132 [48] days [range, 3-183 days]; mean participatlon'for nonusers, 135 [51) days [range, 5-183 days]; t test P = .50). Se.x and ethnicity did not differ by medication use. Nearly two tMirds of each group were male (users, 64.6%; nonusers, 64.5%; x2 test P = .99), and most http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentfful1l290/14/18597maxtoshow=&HITS= 1 O&hits= 1 O&RESI rr .TFOR M A T=~fiT lI'py1=% "1')0 ') 11 n 10M < ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1127, Packet Page 1455 · JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October ... Page 6 of 16 o
....
(XI
Ol
CD
children In each group were wht.te, with smaller numbers of black and Hispanic children (users, SO.O%, S.5%, and 11.5%, respectively; nonusers, 70.9%, '11.4%, and 17.7%, respectively; X" test p = .22). Compared with nonusers of maintenance medication, users had significan;tly more days of ali respiratory symptoms and rescue medication use: 50% of this group experienced approximately 1 week of persistent cough or wheeze, had 2 to 3 days of chest tightness or shortness of breath, and used rescue medication for neanly 3 weeks during the 26-week study period. At least half of all nonusers experienced no symptoms and did not use rescue medication during this same period (Table 3). Daily prevalence of symptoms for users of maintenance medication is shovin in Figure 1. With the exception of somewhat higher rates of symptoms In the early spring and late summer when the temperatures tended to be lowest, there was overall conformity of reporting all 4 symptoms across the observation period.

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new wil"\dow)
Table 3. iRates of Respiratory Symptoms and Rescue Medication Use for Study Subjects Stratified by Use of Maintenance Medication (Southern New England, April i-September 30, 2001)* Single-Pollutant Models for ~sers of Maintenance Medication Ozone (l-Hour Average). An pzone concentration of 51.6 ppb or higher (the top 3 quintiles of the distribution of the maximum 1-hour average) on the same day as the reported symptom was the only exposure variable associated with an Increased likelihood of wheeze (by 16%, 16%, and 22%, respectively) (Table 4, model 1). A 4% Increase In bronchodilator use was also associated with same-day levels of ozone (Sl.6-SS.S ppb) (Table 4, model 1). Previous·day levels of maximum i-hour average ozone were associated with Increased likelihoods of persistent cough (16% Increase for levels ~72.7 ppb), chest tightness (by 21%,.30%, and 37% for levels 2:51.6 ppb), and shortness of breath (by 22.% and 30% for levels 2:58.9 ppb) (Table 4, Model 2). The effects of previous-day levels on chest tigHtness and shortness of breath were significant in an exposure-dependent way: for each 50-ppb increase in previous·day, i-hour' ozone levels, the likelihood of these symptoms Increased by 26% (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.0-1.4S) and 22% (OR, 1.22; 95% Cl, 1.02-1.45), respectively.

View this table:
[in this window]
[In a new window}
Table 4. Odds Ratios From 6 Single-Pollutant Logistic Regression Models of Respiratory Symptoms or Rescue Medication Use of Maintenance Medication Users (n = 130) (Southern New England, April 1 to Septembe;r 30, 2001)* .

Ozone (S-Hour Average). An ozone concentration of 63.3 ppb or higher, measured as the maximum 8-hour average on the same day as the reported sympt~m, was associated with a 30% increase in chest tightness (Table 4, model 3). Previous-day levels of 52.1 ppb or higher were associated with Increased chest tightness, persistent cough, and shortness of breath (Table 4, model 4). As was the case with 1.-hour ozone levels, the associations with the symptoms of chest tightness and shortness of http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentift/1lI290/14/1859?maxtoshow=&HITS=1 O&hits= I O&R ERT IT .TFORM A T=.l'rfi, llt~vi=O/. ~~ 0 ") 11 ()I.-.,nf'l&:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1128, Packet Page 1456 " JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October ... Page 7 of 16 o
....

Cl)
......
o
breath were exposure dependent: a 50-ppb increase in previous-day, 8-hour ozone level increased the likelihood of chest tightness (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.'09-1.62) and shortness of breath (OR, 1.30; 95% cr, 1.05-1.61).

PM 2.5" Increased likelihood of chest tightness was associated with same-day levels of PM2. 5 from 12.1 to 18.9 ~g(m3 (Table 4,
model 5). Previous-day levels of 19.0 ~g(m3 or higher were associated with persistent cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath (Table 4, model 6).

Copollutant Models for Users of Maintenance Medication
In logistic regression models of both ozone and fine particles for children taking maintenance medication, an Increased likelihood of respiratory symptoms was as?ociated with levels of ozone on the same day, previous day, or both; and increased bronchodilator use was associated with the highest level of same-day ozone. Neither respiratory symptoms nor bronchodilator use were associated with level of fine particles.

Ozone (i-Hour Average) and: PM2•
S• Increased likelihood of wheeze was associated with same-day levels of i-hour average ozone of 43.2 ppb or higher in an exposure-dependent manner (Table 5): When ozone is entered into this same model as a continuous variable, a 50-ppb in~rease in same-day ozone increases the likelihood of wheeze by 35% (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-

1.65). None of the exposure variables was associated with an increased likelihood of perSistent cough, and only i-hour average ozone levels between 43.2 and 51.5 ppb were associated with a decreased likelihood of cough (OR, 0.B8; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99). The likelihood of chest tightness was:significantly increased by same-day (<:58.9 ppb) and previous-day (;::51.6 ppb) levels of ozone in an exposure-dependent way. The likelihood of chest tightness Increases by 47% (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.18-1.84) for each 50-ppb increase in same-day levels of ozone, and by 42% (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.7B) for each 50-ppb Increase in previousCday levels.

Shortness of breath and ozone were similarly associated; likelihood of the symptom was Increased by same-day levels of72.7 ppb or higher and previous-day levels from 5B.9 to 72.6 ppb (by 32%). Increased likelihood of bronchodilator use was associated with same-day levels of 72.7 ppb or higher (Table 5).

View this table:
[in this window)
(in a new window]
Table 5. Odds Ratios From the Co pollutant Logistic Regression Model for Same-Day and Previous-Day Levels of Ozone (i-Hour Average) and Particulate Matter of 2.5 ~m or Less (PM z. s) Related to Each
Respiratoiy Symptom or Rescue Medication Use of Maintenance Medication Users (n = 130) (Southern New England, April 1 to September 30,2001)*
Ozone (S-Hour Average) and ;PM2.S. For 8-hour average ozone levels, the likelihood of chest tightness was increased by sameday (OR, 1.64; 95% cr, 1.23-2.t7) and previous-day (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10-1.92) levels of 63.3 ppb or higher. Shortness of breath was similarly associated; likelihood of the symptom was increased by same-day (OR, 1.45; 95% cr, 1.10-1.91) and http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgiJcontenUfull/290/14/1859?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&.fi,l1tevt=% ??, ? 11 (\/?nf) < ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1129, Packet Page 1457 . lAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October ... Page 8 of 16 o
~
previous-day (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.71) levels of 63.3 ppb or higher. As seen for the highest 1-hour ozone level, increased bronchodilator use was associat~d with same-day levels of 63.3 ppb or higher for 8-hour ozone measurements (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17).

Nonusers of Maintenance M~dication
Single-Pollutant Models. Similar analyses for nonusers of maintenance medication revealed no significant associations among the top 3 concentration quintiles for the exposure variables and respiratory symptorns or bronchodilator use. For example, chest tightness was not significantly a~sociated with same-day, 1-hour ozone levels of 72.7 ppb or higher (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-

1.25), same-day, 8-hour ozone levels of 63.3 ppb or higher (OR, 1.17; 95% cr, 0.72-1.92), or previous-day, 8-hour ozone levels of 63.3 ppb or higher (OR,. 0.99; 95% cr, 0.74-1.35). The only significant association was an Increased likelihood of wheeze (OR,

1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43) in the' presence of previous-day, 8-hour average ozone between 39.1 and 45.8 ppb (the second quintile).

Copollutant Models. For the cGildren who were not users of asthma maintenance medication, neither fine particles nor 1-hour average ozone levels were asso~iated with increased likelihoods of respiratory symptoms in copoliutant models. Increased bronchodilator use was associat~d with previous-day fine particle concentrations between 9.0 and 12.0 pg/m3 in the model with 1- hour ozone levels (Table 6) and with these same levels in the model with 8-hour ozone (OR, 1.30; 95% cr, 1.02-1.65). An increase in the likelihood of wheeze was associated with 8-hour D~one, but only for concentrations between 39.1 and 45.8 ppb on the same day (OR, 1.33; 95% C/, 1.00-1.77) or the previous day (OR, 1.31i 95% cr, 1.05-1.63) and between 52.1 and 63.2 ppb for same-day levels (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.00-1.81).

View this table:
(in this window)
[in a new window)

COMMENT
Table 6. Odds Ratios From the Copollutant Logistic Regression Model for Same-Day and Previous-Day Levels of Ozone (l-Hour Average) and Particulate Matter of 2.5 pm or Less (PM 2. 5) Related to Respiratory
Symptoms and Rescue Medication Use of Maintenance Medication Nonusers (n ; 141) (Southern New England, April 1 to September 30, 2001)*
Jump to Section
CJ) In models controlling for ambient fine particle concentration and typically at levels below EPA air quality ::! standards, daily ambient ozone "'las found to be significantly associated with increased risk of respiratory • Top
• Introduction
• Methods
, Results
• Comment
symptoms and increased use of fescue medication among children with asthma severe enough to require maintenance medication. Study strengths Include freque~t telephone fOllOW-Up to collect information on dally calendar-recorded symptoms and medication use; absence of reporting bias between symptoms and • Author Information http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contenVf\Jllf29011411859?rnaxtoshow=&HITS=lO&hits=IO&RESrlT,TFORMAT=,\'lf\,lI,ni=OI., O~ 0 .., 11 ('),/'1('\I1.t:.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1130, Packet Page 1458 o
~
~ N
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, October ... Page 9 of 16 regionally collected ambient air:quality data; the use of both the maximum I-hour average (sensitive to • References spikes in concentration) and 8-hour average (a measure of short-term, cumulative exposure) to assess daily ambient ozone levels; use:of PM 2.
5 levels measured daily; and examination of the simultaneous effects of ozone and PM Z• 5 at
levels near or below current EPA ambient standards. Our results contribute to the limited literature examining the simultaneous effects of ozone and suspended:partlcles on daily respiratory symptoms for a sensitive subpopulation in models adjusted for daily temperature.

One potential limitation of the study is that ambient ozone and particle concentrations were represented as means over regional sites. For the 14 ozone sites on 'any particular day, the mean (SD) ratio of maximum to minimum reading was 1. 70 (0.50), which is similar to the mean ratio ai upper to lower limit of each quintile of the summer ozone distribution of 1.38 (0.30) from our study.

This suggests that the analysis using qulntiles of the OZOne distribution captures the variability that exists in the study region.

Variability among PM z.
s Sites was less, but a potential limitation is that there were only 4 sites with daily measurements. However, a comparison between readingsJrom these 4 sites and readings from the 10 sites with PM 2• S readings every 3 days revealed good
agreement. For the 61 days all sites had in common, the lO-site mean (SD) was 13.8 (8.2) compared with 12.8 (7. 7) ~g/m3 for the 4 sites, and the Pearson correlation was 0.97.

Another potential limitation is ttie lack of personal variables (eg, race) in the regression models. However, by taking advantage of the repeated measurements we 'had for each subject, we were able to use each subject as his or her own control. The sample of 271 children contributed 36 195: person-days of observations to the analyses. Our within-subjects analytic approach permitted a strong test of the associations between ambient air pollution and health outcomes, and personal variables, since they would not vary within subjects, could be e~cluded from the models.

In this study, we did not consider medical care utilization as an outcome. Since this was not a clinic-based study, we did not have access to records to confirm medical visit dates. However, medical records are not necessarily more objective than reports of symptoms and medication use, since a number of factors unrelated to symptom severity also influence utilization .. Symptoms and medication use vary from day to day and may be a more sensitive indicator of the effects of daily changes in air pollution on re·spiratory heaith, since not all $ymptoms result in a physician visit.

In our copollutant models, ozone but not fine particles significantly predicted increased risk of respiratory symptoms and rescue medication use among children using asthma maintenance medication. We found an immediate (same-day) effect of ozone on wheeze (with the I-hour ozone metric), chest tightness, and shortness of breath (with both the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone metrics).

We also found that previous-day levels of ozone (both metrics) were significantly associated with increased risk of chest tightness and shortness of breath. Goodne.ss-of-fit tests for copollutant models suggest that the models with Significant findings (wheeze, chest tightness, and shortness of breath) are reasonably good fits to the data. There were no systematic patterns to the lack of fit for models for perSistent cough and bronchodilator use. However, because of repeated measurements, observations were not independent in any of the models, which may affect the Interpretation of the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. It Is possible that the http://jama.arna-assn.org/cgilcontentlfull/290114/1859?maxtoshow-=&HITS=1 O&hits= 1 O&RESUL TFORM A T=M'n lltevt=% ~~o ...,/1 n/"'J()()t;.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1131, Packet Page 1459 o
....
00 .....

W
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Octob .... Page 10 of 16 more frequently reported events of perSistent cough and bronchodilator use may be associated with ambient air pollution in combination with other factors (e9, activity level) not included in the current study.

Effects of i-hour ozone among children using asthma maintenance medication, especially the association of same-day ozone with wheeze and previous-day ozone with chest tightness, appear to be more exposure dependent than the effects Of small particles.

In copollutant models for wheeze and chest tightness, a 50-ppb increase in same-day, i-hour ozone level Increased the likelihood of wheeze by 35% and chest tightness by 47%. However, since particles and ozone were positively correlated, it Is difficult to separate their effects in the cop'ollutant models. In the single-pollutant model for chest tightness, a SO-ppb Increase in previousday levels of i-hour ozone resuited In a 26% increase in the likelihood of having the symptom. When same-day levels of i-hour ozone were added to the model, the likelihood of this symptom went up to 32%. In the copollutant model, a SO-ppb increase in previous-day, 1-hour ozone level Increased the likelihood of chest tightness by 42%. Levels of PM 2.5 happened to be relatively low and never exceeded EPA standairds for the duration of the study period, which likely contributed to the lack of significant particle effects observed in tile co pollutant models. For our region, an examination of the association between symptoms and particle levels in winter months when oione is not a factor would help us better understand the role of exposure to small particles on respiratory health.

There is little doubt that childree with asthma are especially vulnerable to high levels of air pollution. Among a group of asthmatic children (n ; 71) Iivirig in Mexico City, where levels of ozone have regularly exceeded the EPA standard, multivariate regression analyses of same-day ambient air pollution and separate models of previous-day pollution all revealed significant effects of ozone and fine particles on the likelihood of cough (an Increase of 8% for each 50-ppb increase in ozone on either the same day or previous day; an in:crease of 6% or 8% for each 10-~g!m3 increase in PM 2.

S on the same day or previous day) and
lower respiratory tract Illness (by 7% for each pollutant on the same day or previous day).2 The effects seen for PM2.5 in Mexico City, but not in our study, could'be explained by the large difference between the mean (SD) 24-hour concentration of PM 2.

S in
Mexico City (85.7 [30.2] ~g!m3), which was above the EPA standard of 65 ~g!m3 and was well above the mean of 13.1 (7.9) ~g!m3 observed In the current study. In addition, the chemical composition of the fine particles in each region may be different.2, 10 The larger effect of 1-hour ozbne thatwe found could be explained in part by the fact that we stratified our analysis by asthma severity, thereby observ',ng a co:nslstent pattern of Increased likelihood of some symptoms of more than 40% in the group with more severe disease and no significant effects among the group with less severe disease.

Our results are consistent with d,cent studies7, 10 that suggest exposure to lower levels of ozone is aSSOCiated with respiratory symptoms in children with asthnia. Children with asthma who attended a week-long asthma summer camp (a total of 166 children during three i-week periods compared with our 183-day observation period) in the Connecticut River Valley (the same geographic area as the current study) were exposed to levels of ozone somewhat higher than the current study (mean [SD] 1-hour average, 84 [38J ppb; range, 20-160 ppb). In slngle-poilutant mOdels, daily levels of same-day ozone were significantly associated with increased chest symptoms, ~-agonlst use, and decreased lung function. 'O These associations did not change when same-day http://jama.ama-assn.orglcgilcontentifilllI29011411859?maxtoshov.=&HITS;)O&hits;10&RESTTl.TFORMAT=R.-Ji,llt.V1=O/o ~~o .., /1 f'l'''''''''('I::

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1132, Packet Page 1460 · JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Octob... Page 11 of 16 o
.....
~
levels of sulfate (a primary constituent of PM2.

S in this region) were added to the model. In a recent study7 of 846 children with asthma living in 8 urban areas around the country, ozone at levels comparable to those observed in the current study (mean 8- , hour average of 48 ppb compared with our mean of 51 ppb with <5% of the days exceeding the EPA standard of 80 ppb In both studies) was associated, in Slngl¢-pollutant models, with morning respiratory symptoms (wheeze, cough, or chest tightness).

Although the data were not shown, the authors of each study also noted that adding copollutants to their models did not appreciably confound the effect 'of ozone. Both studies concluded that ozone, even at levels lower than current EPA standards, Is strongly associated with adverse respiratory health effects in children with asthma.

Previous environmental chambe'r studies19·
21 of adults with asthma exposed to ozone for 1 to a few hours have shown relatively little effect on symptoms or lung fUnction. On the other hand, short-term exposure to elevated levels of ozone and particulates in outdoor air has been associated'with reduced pulmonary function in otherwise healthy children. 1• 22-23 Our study of asthmatic children under ambient exposure conditions In areas of lower pollution suggests that the more prolonged exposures associated with summertime ozone produce a greater stimulus than chamber exposures, that asthmatic children are more susce'ptible than asthmatic adults, that effects are delayed and not captured by short-term chamber studies, or that coexposures to other unidentified constituents of amb:ient air enhance the response to ozone. A recent study supporting this view examined the impact of traffic-reducing changes in Atianta, Ga, during the 1996 summer Olympic Games. 24 Significant reductions in ozone and particles were associated with significant reductions in acute asthma care events (physician, clinic, or hospital viSits) among children aged 1 to 16 years. In analyses including days before, during, and after the Olympics, an increase in daily acute asthma events was associated with levels of 1-hour !"zone concentrations beginning at 60 to 89 ppb. Our findings Indicate that comparable levels were associated with an increased likelihood of wheeze (2:58.9 ppb), chest tightness (2:58.9 ppb), shortness of breath, and rescue medication use (2:72.7 ppb).

In our study, we defined 2 levels of.asthma severity based on maintenance medication use. We reasoned that since we were examining the association of air'pollution and symptoms, we did not want to use symptoms to define severity. Instead, we used maintenance medication as a proxy for disease severity even though medication use and symptoms will be related. Maintenance medication users had significantl/{ more wheeze, perSistent cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath than the nonusers and used rescue medication significantly more often. Our results strongly suggest that this definition of asthma severity divides the group into 2 levels of vulnerability to air pollution.

Our study is a unique combination of a sample of asthmatic children with detailed symptom and medication use followed for a long period and well-measured diaily ambient copollutants. These results add to others that suggest that, even at low levels of ambient ozone and controlling for ambient fine particle concentration, children with severe asthma are at a significantly Increased risk of experiencing respiratory symptoms.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentifuIl/290114/1859?maxtoshow=&HITS=1 O&hits=J O&RESULTFORMA T=&fnl1text=% ??" i / 1 (''''''O()'' ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1133, Packet Page 1461 o
....
(XI
.....
<11
JA..\1A -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Octob... Page 12 of 16 Corresponding Author and R~prints: lanneane F. Gent, PhD, Yale University Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology, 1 Church St, Sixth Floor, New j-Iaven, cr 06510 (e-mail:
ja [email protected]).

Author Contributions: Study concept and design: Holford, Bracken, Beckett, Leaderer.

Acquisition of data: Belanger, Btacken, Leaderer.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Gent, Triche, Holford, Belanger, Bracken, Leaderer.

Drafting of the manuscript: Gent, Bracken, Leaderer ..

Jump to Section
· Top
• IntroductIon
• Methods
· Results
· Comment
· Author information
• Refere nces
Critical revision of the manuscript for Important intellectual content: Gent, Triche, Holford, Belanger, Bracken, Beckett, Leaderer.

Statistical expertise: Gent, Trich~, Holford, Bracken, Leaderer.

Obtained funding: Holford, BracKen, Beckett, Leaderer.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Belanger, Bracken, Leaderer.

Study supervision: Bracken, Leaqerer.

Organization of manuscript: Gen;t.

Funding/Support: Work on this study was funded by grants ES07456, ES05410, ESll013, and ES01247 from the National Institute of Environmental Healtn Sciences.

Acknowledgment: We thank tHe Departments of Environmental Protection In the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts for their cooperation in providing air:quality measurements.

Author Affiliations: Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (Drs Gent, Triche, Holford, Belanger, Bracken, and Leaderer); Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY (Dr Beckett).

REFERENCES
http://jama.ama.assn.org/cgilcontentifu1ll290114/1859?maxtoshow=&HITS= 1 O&hits=j O&RESUL TFORMA T=&fl1iitext=% ?? ? f1rll~ DO, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1134, Packet Page 1462 . JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Octob ... · Page 13 of 16 o
.....

1. Gold DR, Damo.kosh AI, Pope, CA III, et al. Particulate and ozone pollutant effects on the respiratory function of children in southwest Mexico City. Epidemiology. 1999;10:8-16. lSI I MEDLINE

2. Romieu I, Meneses F, Ruiz S,: et aJ. Effects of air pollution on the respiratory health of asthmatic children living in Mexico City. Am ] Respir Crit Care Med. 1996; 154:300-307. ABST«ACT

3. Romieu I, Meneses F, Ruiz S,. et al. Effects of intermittent ozone exposure on peak expiratory flow and respiratory symptoms among asthmatic children in Mexico City. Arch Environ Health. 1997;52:368-376. lSI

I MEDUNE
Jump to Section
• Top
· Introduction
• Methods
• Results
· Comment
'_Author Information
• References

4. Peters A, Dockery OW, Heinrich J, Wichmann HE. Medication use modifies the health effects of particulate sulfate air pollution in children with asthma. environ. Healch Perspect. 1997;105:430-435. lSI I MEDLINE

5. Ostro BD, Lipsett MJ, Mann J~, Braxton-Owens H, White MC. Air pollution and asthma exacerbations among African-American children in Los Angeles. Inhal Taxicol. 1995;7:711-722. lSI

6. Ostro B, Lipsett M, Mann J, Braxton-Owens H, White M. Air pollution and exacerbation of asthma in African-Ameilcan children in Los Angeles. Epidemiology. 2001;12:200-208. CrossRef I lSI I MEDLINE

7. Mortimer KM, Tager IB, Dockery DW, Neas LM, Redllne S. The effect of ozone on inner-city children with asthma: Identification of susceptible subgroups. Am] Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:1838-1845. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT 8, Delfino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH. Symptoms in pediatric asthmatics and air pollution: differences in effects by symptom severity, anti-inflammatory medication use and particulate averaging time. Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106:751-761.

IS! I MEDLINE

9. Gielen MH, van der Zee SC, v:an Wijnen JH, van Steen CJ. Acute effects of summer air pollution on respiratory health of asthmatic children. Am ) Respir(;rit Care Med. 1997;155:2105-2108. ABSTRACT

10. Thurston GO, Lippmann M, Scott MB, Fine JM. Summertime haze air pollution and children with asthma. Am ) Respir Crit Care Med. 1997; 155:654-660. ":8STRACT
11, Gent JF, Ren P, Belanger K, :et al. Levels of household mold associated with respiratory symptoms in the first ye.ar of life in a cohort at risk for asthma. Env/r~n Health Perspect. 2002;1l0:A781-A786. lSI I MEDLINE

12. Belanger K, Beckett W, Triche E, et al. Symptoms of wheeze and perSistent cough In the first year of life: associations with indoor allergens, air contaminants, and maternal history of asthma. Am) Epidemlol. 2003;158:195-202. ABSTRACT/FUll TEXT

13. US Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office; 1996. EPA report EPA/600/ AP-93/004a-c.

14. State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Annual Air Quality Summary (1999). Available at:
http://dep.state.ct.us/air2/ozone/99aqs.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2002.

CXI 15. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Air Quality Report (2000). Available at:
~ http;//www.mass.gov/dep/bwp/daqc. Accessed November 18, 2002.

16. SAS Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2001.

17. Liang K-Y, Zeger SL Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22. lSI http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentiful1l290/1411 859?maxtoshow=&HITS= I O&hits= 1 O&RESUL TFORMA T=&fulltex1=%2?... ?JIOf?{)!)'; ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1135, Packet Page 1463 o
....
())
-...j
-...j
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Oetob ... · Page 14 of 16

18. Allison PD. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1999.

19. Silverman F. Asthma and r,;spiratory irritants (ozone). Environ Health Perspect. 1979;29:131-136.151 I MEDLINE

20. Hanania NA, Tarlo SM, Silv~rman F, Urch S, Senathirajah N, Zamel N, Corey P. Effect of exposure to low levels of ozone on the response to inhaled allergen in allergic asthmatic patients. Chest. 1998;114:752-756. ABSTRACT/FULL TEXT .

21. Kehrl HR, Peden DB, Ball B,:Folinsbee LJ, Horstman O. Increased specific airway reactivity of persons with mild allergic asthma after 7.6 hours of exposure to 0.16 ppm ozone. 1 Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;104:1198-1199. 151 I MEDLINE

22. Spektor OM, Lippmann M, Lioy PJ, et al. Effects of ambient ozone on respiratory function in active normal children. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988; 137: 313-320.151 I MEOLlNE

23. Ulmer C, Kopp M, rhorst G, Frischer T, Forster J, Kuehr J. Effects of ambient ozone exposures during the spring and summer of 1994 on pulmonary function of schoolchildren. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1997;23:344-353. CrossRef I lSI I MEOLlNE

24. Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague WG. Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 summer Olympic Games In Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma. lAMA. 2001;285:897-905.

ABSTRACT/FULL TExt
RELATED ARTICLES IN lAMA·
This Week in JAMA
JAMA. 2003;290;1817.

FULL TEXT
Air Pollution as an Underappreciated Cause of Asthma Symptoms George O. Thurston and David V. Bates
lAMA. 2003;290:1915-1917.

EXTRACT I FULL TEXT
Health Effects of Ozone
Sharon Parmet, Cassia Lynm, and Richard M. Glass
lAMA. 2003; 290: 1944.

EXTRACT I FULL TEXT

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Role of interleukin-6 in murine airway responses to ozone Johnston et al.

Am. l. Physiol. 2005;288:L390-~397.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentifuIl/29011411859?maxtoshow=&HITS= 1 O&hits= 1 O&RESUL TFORMA T=&fulltext=%22a... 2/1 01200<; .-.-.-~-------------------
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1136, Packet Page 1464 o
....

CO
....

CO
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Octob... Page 15 of 16 CXCR2 is essentiai for maximal neutrophil recruitment and methacholine responsiveness after ozone exposure Johnston et al.

Am. J. Physiol. 2005;288:L61-l!67.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Ambient Air Pollution: Health Hazards to Children
Committee on Environmental Health
Pediatrics 2004;114:1699-1707.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Chronic effects of ozone in children
Sunyer
Eur Respir J 2003;23:185-186.

FULL TEXT
Differential effects of ozone on airway and tissue mechanics in obese mice Rivera-Sanchez et al.

J. Appl. Physiol. 2004;96:2200-2206.

ABSTRACT I FULL TEXT
Ozone and Asthma--Reply
Thurston and Bates
JAMA 2004;291:423-424.

FULL TEXT
Asthma Symptoms Associated with Low Levels of Air Pollution Journal Watch (General) 2003;2003:2-2.

FULL TEXT '
Air Pollution as an Underapp~eciated Cause of Asthma Symptoms Thurston and Bates '
lAMA 2003;290:1915-1917. .

FULL TEXT
HOME ["CURRENT ISSUE I PAST JSSUE~ I COLLECTIONS I CME I CAREERNET I CONTACT uS I HELP © 2003 )AMA & Archives. All Rights Reserved,
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontentifUll/290114/ I 859?maxtoshow=&HITS=J O&hits=j O&RESUL TFORMA T=&ful Itext=%??," ? 11 ()!?()()<; ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1137, Packet Page 1465 o
.....
co
.....

CD
JAMA -- Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Chlldren With Asthma, Oetob... Page 16 of 16 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/contentifull/290f14/1859?maxtoshow=&HITS=l O&hits=1 O&RESUL TFORM A T=&iiJlltAyt=% ?? ? 11 {)n()M ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1138, Packet Page 1466 )
Yage I 01"9
Environmental Health Persvectives Volume .. 113 Number 2 February 2005 Research Article
Ambient Air Pollution and Atherosclerosis in Los Angeles Nino Kunzli. Michael Jerrett, Wendy J. Mack, Bernardo Beckennan, laurie laBree, Frank Gilliland, Duncan Thomas, John Peters, and Howard N. Hodls
Divisions of Environmental Heallh and Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, and Atherosclerosis Research Unit, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, los Angeles, California, USA
• Introdyctioll
• Materials and MethW...§
• Resulm. • Discussion
Abstract
Associations have been found between long-term exposure.Io ambient air pollution and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The contribution Of air pollution to atherosclerosis that underlies many cardiovascular diseases has flot been investigated, Animal data suggest that ambient particulate matter (PM) may contribute to atherogenesis. We used data on 798 participants from two clinical trials to investigate the association between atheroscferosis and fong~tenn exposure to ambient PM up to 2.5 lJm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.

S)' Baseline data included assessment of the carotid intima~media. thickness (CIMT), a measure of subclinical atherosclerosis. We geocoded subjects' residential areas to assign annual mean concen~rations of ambient PM2 .5' Exposure values were assigned from a PM2. 5 surface derived from a geostatistical model.
'n.dividually assigned annual mean PM2.
5 concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 26.9 }Jg/m3 (mean, 20.3). For a cross-sectional 'exposure contrast of 10 I-lg/m3 PM2.5' CIMT increased by 5.9% (95% confidence interval, 1-11 %). Adjustment for age reduced the coefficients, but further adjustment for covariates indicated robust estimates in the range of 3.9~4.3% (p-values.

0.05-0.1). Among older subjects (2: 60 years of age). women, never smokers, and those reporting lipid~rDwering treatment at ,baseline, the associations of PM2.
5 and CIMT were larger with the strongest associations in women ~ 60 years of age (15.7%,5.7-26.6%). These results represent the first epidemiologic evidence of an association between atherosclerosis and ambient air pollution. Given the leading role of cardiovascular disease as a cause of death and the large populations exposed 10 ambient PM2.
5• Ihese findings f!lay be important and need further confirmation. Key words: air pollution, atherosclerosis, particulate matter. Environ Health Perspect 113:201-206 (200S). dOi:l0.1289fehp.7523 available via h1tp;l!J1~AQlf)rgL [Online 22 November 2004J
Address correspondence to N. KOnzli. Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California. Division of Environmental Health. 1540 Alcazar Sl. CHP 236. Los Angeles. CA 90033·9013 USA. Telephone: (323) 442- .2870. Fax: (323) 442-3272. E-mail: 1o.J~~usG,edu
This work was supported in part by the Na1ionallnstitule on'Aging (grants R01AG~ 13860 (Vilamin E Atherosclerosis Prevention Study) and R01AG-17160 (B-Vitamin Atherosclerosis Inlervenlion Trial»), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grants P30 ES07048, 5P01ES 11627), the Wright Foundation, the Hastings Foundation, and the Health Effects Institute.

The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

Received 26 August 2004; accepled 22 November 2004.

Introduction
01880
A large body of epidemiologic evidence suggests aSSOCiations between ambient air pollution and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity (Peters and Pope 2002; Pope et al. 2004). AU of these studies focus on events occurring at a lale stage of vascular disease processe's. The impact of air pollution on Ihe underlying preclinical conditions remains poorly understood. hUp:llehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/20041752317523.html 211512005 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1139, Packet Page 1467 f
Yage 2 of9
We hypothesize that current levels of ambient particulate matter (PM) up to 2.5 lJm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2. 5 ) may
contribute to atherosclerosis, leading to subclinical anatomical changes that playa major role in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality later in life. Animal studies support our hypothesis by showing that inhalation of ambient PM promotes oxidative lung damage, including alveolar and systemic inffammatory responses (Becker et at 1996; Dye et aJ. 2001; Fujii et a!. 2002; GOlo et a!. 2004; Suwa et al. 2002; van Eeden et al. 2001).

We investigated the association between residential ambient PM2. 5 and carotid artery intima-media thickness (CJMT) using prerandamization baseline data from two recent clinical trials conducted in Los Angeles, California (Hodis et al. 2002).

CIMT is a well-established quantitative measure of generalized atherosclerosis that correlates well with all of the major cardiovascular risk factors, with coronary artery atherosclerosis, and with clinical cardiovascular evenls (Mack et at 2000)_ It is an established tool for investigating the contribution of !on.9-term exposures such as smoking or passive smoking to subclinical stages of atherosclerosis at any given age (Diez-Roux et at 1995; Howard el al. 1994, 1998). This is the first study to assess the associalion of atherosclerosis with air pollution.

Materials and Methods
Population and health assessment. We used baseline health data from two randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled clinical. trials conducted at the University of Southern California Atherosclerosis Research Unit (Hodis et al. 2002). The Vitamin E Atherosclerosis Progression Study (VEAPS) investigated the effects of vitamin E on the progression of atherosclerosis measured by CIMT. The B-Vitamin Atherosclerosis Intervention Trial (8VAIT) focused on theeffecl of vitamin B supplements on the progression of atherosclerosis (trial in progress). Baseline assessment in both trials included elMT measured between 1998 and 2003 using the same standardized methods (Hodis et al. 2002; Sekeret a!. 1994, 2001). Recruitment of volunteers occurred over the entire Los Angeles Basin, covering a geographic area of approximately

64.000 km'.

Eligible subjects for the VEAPS Irial (n =: 353) were men and women ~ 40 years of age with slightly increased lDl cholesterol (2!: 3.37 mmol/l) but with no clinical signs or symptoms of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (Hodis et aL 2002).

Subjects with diabetes, diastolic blood pressure> 100 mm Hg, thyroid disease, serum creatinine> 0.065 mmolll, life· threatening diseases, or high alcohol intake were excluded. .

BVAIT (n =:; 506) had a similar design to that ofVEAPS. Men and women> 40 years of age were prescreened to meet study criteria (fasting plasma homocysteine 2:: 8.5 J,lmoIlL; postmenopausal for women; no evidence of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, or cancer). Subjects were exduded on the basis of any clinical signs or symptoms of CVD, diabetes or fasting serum glucose 2:: 140 mg/dL. triglyceride levels ~ 150 mg/dL. serum creatinine> 1.6 mg/dl, high blood pressure,. untreated thyroid disease. life-threatening disease with prognosis < 5 years, or high alcohol intake.

Thus, our study induded "healthy" subjects with biomarkers (elevated lDL cholesterol or homocysteine) that suggested an Increased risk of future CVDs (n:: 859). Fifty-eight subjects were excluded in the exposure assignment process because they lived outside the area with PM2.
5 data. Three subjects had missing data in at least one of the covariates used in the models. Our total sample conSisted of 798 par1icipants.

Health measures, including CIMT. Our main outcome of interest is CIMT. In both trials, high.resolution 8-mode ultrasound images of the right common carotid artery were obtained before the intervention (baseline) with a 7.5-MHz linear array transducer attached to an ATl Ullramark---4 Plus Ultrasound System (Ultramark, Bothell. WA). We used this . _Q9~~ljfle CIMJ roe~,wfe(n~nt as the outcome .. Details of this highly repr-oducible method are published (H0dis-et a!. Q002; Selzer et a!. 1994, 2001). Blood pressure, height, and weight were measured with standard procedures.

The baseline questionnaires included 3n assessment of all major CVO risk factors and CDvariales, including clinical events, diet, use of prescription medications, physical activity, current and past smoking and passive smoking, and vitamin supplements. Age, education. and other sociodemographic factors were available for each subject. Fasting blood samples were also drawn for lipid measurements. Data used in our analyses were collecled with the same tools in both trials.

Exposure assignment. To assess exposure we chose a novel approach derived from a geographic information system (GIS) and geoslatistics. This method allows for assignment of long~lerm mean ambient concentrations of PM2. 5 to the
ZIP code area of each subject's residential address (KOnzli and Tager 2000). The resulting surface of PM2.
5 covered the entire los Angeles metropolitan ~rea. The surface is derived from a geostatistical model and data from 23 state and local district monitoring stations (during 2000). These monitors are located across the los Angeles region to characterize urban levels of pollution. To assign exposure.

PM2.
5 data were interpolated using a combination of a universal kriging model htlp;//ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/20041752317523.html
01881
211512005
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1140, Packet Page 1468 ,
. --- --- _. - - --~o-·~·-
with a quadratic drift and a multiquadric radial basis func.tion model (Sailey and Gafre1l1995; Burrough and McOonneIl1998). We averaged the two surfaces based on 25~m grid cel/s. Examination of errors from the universal model showed that:;:.. 50% oltha study area had assigned values within 15% of monitored concentrations, whereas 67% were within 20%. The larger errors were on the periphery of our study area, where the density of study participants was the lowest. We linked the ZIP code centroids of earo subject with- the exposure surface through a geocoding database [Environmental Systems Research Institule (ESRI) 2004J. Figure 1 iIIuslrales the PM2.
5 surface with the geolocaled
ZIP codes. Individually assigned PM2.
5 data had a range from 5.2 to 26.9 J.Jgfm3
(mean, 20.3), thus exceeding the range observed across 156 metropolitan areas used in the largest cohort stUdy ot air pollution and mortality (Pope et al. 2002).

All models were implemented with ArcScript from ESRI (Redlands, CAl.

Statistical analyses. We tested the univariate and multivariate associations between CIMT and ambient PM2.
5 using linear regression analyses. Bdensive
residual diagnostics indicated some heteroskedasticity, which was rectified with the natural log-transformed CIMT. We adjusted forfaclors that were statistically rctgt;;:J ur ';I
figure 1. ZIP code locations of the
study population geocoded on the
PM2.5 surface, modeled wilh 2000
PM2.
5 data, and di{>tribution of
individually assigned concentrations.
associated with both CIMT and ambient PM2.
5 (age, male sex, low education, and low income). Next, we expanded the models using covariates that were associated with either PM2. 5 or C1MT, including indicator variables for current secondhand smoke exposure and current and former personal smoking. We then added covariates that playa role in atherosderosis such as blood pressure, lOL cholesterol, or proxy measures such as reporting trealment with antihypertensives or lipid·lowering medications at study entry. These factors may affect the pathophysiologic pathways linking air pollution exposure and atherosclerosis (Ross 1999); thus. such models may overadjust the coefficients. We chose this conselVative approach to test the sensitivity of the effect estimates under a broad range of model assumptions.

There is increasing evidence thai host factors such as age. sex, or underlying disease and risk profiles may modify the effects of air pollution (Pope el at 2002; Zanobetti and SchWartz 2002). Furthermore, the finding of atherosclerosis in PMexposed rabbits was based on a hyperlipidemic trait (SUW8 et aL 2002). Thererore, we also stratified by sex, age « 60 years, ~ 60 years), smoking status, and Iipid-lowBring drug therapy.

Results
Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the study population and among main subgroups. Table 2 presents the percent change in CIMT in association with a 10 fJQ/m3 conlrast in ambient PM2.
5 concen1rations for three crosssectional regression models. The unadjusted model indicates a 5.9% [95% confi~ence interval (CI). 1~ 11%} increase in CIMT per 10 !-Ig/m3 PM2S For the observed contrast between lowest and highest exposure (20 IJg/m3 PM2.

S)' this
corresponds to a 12.1% (2.0-23.1%) increase in CIMT. The only covariate with a substantial effect on Ule point estimate was age, which reduced the effect from

5.9 to 4.3% (0.4-9%) per 10 lJgfm3 PM2.

S' This change agrees with the agerelated effect modification. Otherwise, effect estimates across the models remained robust, in the range of 3.9-4.3% with p-values rrom 0.05 tOO.1. To corroborate the exposure-response relationship, we also categorized PM2. 5 levelS into quartiles. Figure 2 shows the adjusted mean CIMT across these four groups of equal sample size at the mean levels of the covariates (age, sex, education. and income). The trend across the exposure groups was statistically significant (p::: 0.041). The unadjusted means of CIMT among these quartiles of exposure were 734,753,758, and 774 11m, respectively.

The associations between CIMT and PM2.
5 were substantially stronger among
109 subjects reporting lipid-lowering medication al study entry, both in men and in women (Table 2, fjgure 3). The crude effect reached 15.8% (2~31%) per 10 I-lglm3 PM2.

S' with adjusted values ranging between 12 and 16%. Desplle the small sample size, p·values of all models were mostly < 0.1 and often < 0.05.

Results also suggest significant age and sex interactions, with much larger effects in women and in the older age group (Figure 3). Effect estimates in bttp:llehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/20041752317523.html
Table 1.

Table 2,
"I '" I
f E I» I , ." 1 ~I'" 1
" , .. •
,.
__ • __
~H·1Hl il1n·~>JI mr,·nco) r~l1'l'I~
-oll.It;'" of "M" I'JM~.S-'.oz.'1IIJI
01882
2115/2005
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1141, Packet Page 1469 women were statislically significant and typically in the range of 6-9% per 10 lJg/m3 PM2.

S' Associations were strongest among wome~ ~ 80 years of age (n :;; 186), leading to crude estimates of 19.2% (9-31%). Adjusted coefficients ranged from 14 to 19%" being statistically significant in all models and sensitivity analyses.

Among never smokers (n = 502). the effect estimate reached 6.6% (1.0-12.3%).

The estimate was small and not significant in current {n .::: 30} and former smokers (n = 265).

Discussion
Our study presents the first evidence for an association between CIMT and lon9- term exposure (0 ambient air pollution. As recently reviewed in a statement of the American Heart Association (Brook et al. 2004) substantial epIdemiologic and experimental evidence suggests a contribution of ambient air pollutants on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. However, these studies focus on acute and subacute effects on cardiac autonomic function, inflammatory or thrombogenic markers, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospital admission, and death. The only outcome considered in long-term air pollution studies has been mortality. The relative risks for acute effects on monality have been substantially smaller than those observed for long-term associations (Pope et at 2002; Samet et aL 2000). As shown previously, cohort studies are capable of capturing acute and chronic effects or air pollution on the course of diseases that ullimately lead to premature death (KOnzli et al. 2001).10 contrast, timeseries and panel studies investigate only the associations of event occurrence with the most recent exposure (KOnzli et al. 2001). Thus, if air pollution has both acute and cumulative long-term eHeds, one expects larger mortality coefficients' in cohort studies. CIMT reflects tong-term past exposure; Ihus, we provide the first evidence for dlronic effects or air pollution on atherogenesis that may in part explain the above men1ioned discrepancy between acute and long-term risk estimates (Pope et al. 2002; Samet et al. 2000).

There are several major aspects to be considered in the interpretation of this new Figure 2. Mean CIMT ± 1 SE among
quartiles of UIO PM2.
5 distribution.

The y-axiS shows mean CIMT levels
at the population average of Ihe
adjuslment covariates (age, sex,
education, and income). The first
quartile is the reference group.

Figure 3. Percent difference and 95%
CI in CIMT associated with a 10
!-191m3 contrast in ambient PM2.
5 in aU
subjects and in subgroups. Upjd~lT,
lipid-lowering ·therapy. All estimates
Bre based on the cross-sectional
linear model with log intima-media
thickness as the dependent variable
and home outdoor PM2.
5 as the
independent variable, adjusted for
sex, age, educalian, and income.

Numbers in parentheses are numbers
or subjects per group. Data are
ordered by size of point estimate; the
null ~ffect line is indicated by a dash.
finding, mainly the strength in the exposure assignment. the limited evidence for bias, the differences in effects within subgroups, and plausibility.

Exposure assignment. The individual residence-based assignment of exposure represents a substantial improvement over most studies that have relied on central monitors or on binary road buffers combined with basic interpolation (Hoek et al. 2002; Pope et at 2004). As a sensitivity analysis, we used weighted least-squares models with the weights specified as the inverse of the standard errors from the universal kriging mode' to down-weight estimates with larger error. In addition, we implemented models based solely on the universal kriging estimate. In both instances results were robust and similar to what we found with our main model.

Time-activity studies show that people spend most of their time in or around home, and our restriction of exposure assessment on residential address captures the most relevant part of exposure (leech et al. 2002). PM2. 5 generally
displays spatially homogeneous distributions across small areas such as neighborhoods and blOCKS, and as a result, the ambient conditions at the ZIP code centroid likely reflect the levels expected at home outdoors (Roosli et al. 2000). PM2. 5 of outdoor origin will also penetrate indoors, and correlations between fong-term outdoor PM concentrations and indoor levels of PM from outdoor origin is high (Sarnat et 81. 2000). Exposure to ambient air pollution while working and during commute are not included in our exposure term but are considered to be a relevant source of exposure (Riediker et al. 2003). Although most likely a random misdassification with biases toward the nUll, the errors may affect subgroups differently, thus explaining part of the observed interactions.

In Los Angeles, no dear trends have been observed in PM2. 5 concentrations over the pas15-10 years. The year 2000 surface characterizes the prevailing mean PM2.
5 concentrations across several years and can be considered a measure of long-term past exposure. This year also sits in the middle of the baseline recruitment period. Overall, the various limitations in our exposure assignment may add some random error, biasing results toward weaker associations (Thomas et al. 1993).

We also assigned ambient ozone to ZIP code centroids. Inclusion of ozone in the models had no impact on the PM2. 5 coefficients or the SEs. Ozone and PM2.
5 were not correlated (r = -0.17), and the PM2
.
5 estimates were not substantially
01883
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/20041752317523.html 211512005 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1142, Packet Page 1470 ,
._- ----- ----Q---~ .la!,)CJ U1
different in low- and high-ozone regions. The estimates of association for ozone were positive but nol statistically significant and much smaller than ror PM2.

S' This finding must be put in context of the specific challenges in determining tong-term exposure to ozone, which are substantially different than in the case of PM exposure. In conlrast to PM2.

S from outdoor
origin, ambient ozone levels have lower correlations with personal exposure (Avol et at 1998; Sarnat et at 2000, 2002); therefore, the ability to detect effects of ozone will likely be reduced due t9 greater misdassification.

Biases. Our subjects were a nonrandom sample of "healthy" volunteers with above-average education, meeting strict inclusion criteria for the two clinical trials. Although we cannot excfude some systematic selection biases affecting the cross-sectional data, it is unlikely that subjects with preclinical signs of atherosclerosis would have been more likely to volunteer if they lived in more polluted areas. Although the selection of subjects limits the generaliza1ion to other populations, we do not expect this to lead to over- or underestimating the cross-sectional associations. The two lrials recruited subjects independently; thus, the effects may be compared across trials to evaluate the potential influence of selecting volunteers. The populations differed with regard to age, smoking-habits, baseline lOl and treatmenl, blood pressure, active and passive smoking, and other relevant factors; thus, the PM2. 5 coefficients were smaller and were not
statistically significant in the VEAPS trial with ils younger population. However. after taking these factors into account, the associations with ambient PM2.
5 were similar. For example, among elderly women of VEAPS (n = 70) and BVAIT (n :::
116),lhe effect estimate was 18.1% (-0.1 to 36.3.%) and 13.6% (2.8-24.4.%), respectively. There is some evidence for larger effects in subjects with cardiovascular risk factors, indicated by prescriptions of lipid-lowering treatment Our trials excluded subjects with clinically manifest CVDs. Moreover, if air pollution amplifies systemic inflammation among those prone to atherosclerosis, exclusion of subjects with high lDl may be a source of bias. One may expect effect estimates in a less selected, less healthy population to be larger than those reported.

The wealth of baseline data from these dinical trials offered the opportunity to control for a broad afray of covariates. Apart from the effect of age adjustment, estimates were robust to numerous combinations of covariates, including income, education, active and passive tobacco smoke, cardiovascular prescriptions, vitamin intake, and physical activity.

Uncontrolled or residual confounding appears to be an unlikely explanation for these results. Among women. adjustment for hormone replacement therapies did not affect the PM2. 5 estimates.

In previous studies, we found that spatial autocorrelation ill the residuals could affect the size and significance or pollution coefficients {Jerrett et a!. 2003a}_ We investigated spatial autocorrelation of the unstandardized residuals. We assessed autocorrelation with first-order, adjusted first-order, and second-order spatlal weight matrices based on nearest neighbor contiguity, but we found no evidence of spatial autocorrelation. This supports the condusion that the models supply efficient unbiased estimates (Jerrett el at 2003b). As part of our sensitivity analyses, we also derived PM2. 5 surfaces using
different interpolations and weighted least squares with weights equal to the inverse of the standard error of the exposure estimate. All approaches produced very similar results.

Evidence for effect modification. The data suggest substantial interactions with age, sex. smoking. and underlying cardiovascular risk ractors. Given the reduced sample size among subgroups. the recruitment of volunteers, and the crosssectional nature of the data, it is difficult to fully explore the causes of the observed modifications of associations and to establish susceptibility profiles. If the exposure misclassifications differed across subgroups, part of the interactions may be explained by differential exposure error. The sex and age difference could also be an artifact due (0 measurement error in the assigned exposure because time spent in commuting and location of work places may be different in men and women and in the young and elderly. Empirical studies on mobility suggest women have smaller activity spaces than men and younger groups, meaning they tend to spend more time in and around the home (Kwan and lee 2004), and the same is probably true of the elderly compared with younger groups. Exposure measurement error may be reduced in those spending more time at home, leading to stronger effects (Thomas et at 1993). Moreover, differences in statistical power may playa role as well; as shown at least for the 25-40-year age range, power to detect effects on CIMT is larger in women than in men (Stein et al. 2004).

The finding that those reporting prescriptions of lipid-lowering medications at baseline showed stronger associations of CIMT with PM2.
5 merits further investigation. This result agrees with the observed effects of PM on atherosclerosis in experiments conducted in hyperlipidemic rabbits (Gota el al. 2004; Suwa et at 2002). The systemic inflammatory and atherogenic reaction in these rabbits was related to the amount of PM contained in the alveolar macrophages.ln our study. being under lipid-lowe ling therapy is an indicator for risk profiles prone to atherogenesis. Those subjects were mostly men (64%) and, on average, older. more often active or passive smokers, and almost twice as likely to report antihypertensive treatment The systemic response to ambient PM may amplify and expand the oxidation of LOl cholesterol among these susceptible subjects, consequently contributing to injury in the artery wall ·(Goto et at 2004; Ross 1999). Investigations of short-term effects of ambient air pollution on mortality also suggest that underlying risk profiles such as diabetes may amplify susceptibility to ambient PM (ZanobeUi and Schwartz 2002), and similar findings have been shown with smoking and diabetes mellitus in association with elMT (Karim et al. 2005). To clarify the relevance of lipid status, it would be inleres1ing to investigate our hypothesis among cohorts with familial hypercholesteremia (Wiegman et al. 2004; Wittekoek et al. 1999).
01884
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/membersl20041752317523.htm1 2/1512005 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1143, Packet Page 1471 .. rage 0 or '7
As shown in Figure 3, the size of the point estimate was larger among the older subjects. Future researrn needs to clarify whether air pollution contributes to atherosclerosis only after a certain age or early on. Effects of air pollution on lung development have been observed during adolescence and may be a result of both pulmonary and chronic systemic inflammatory effects (Gauderman et at 2002); thus. it is conceivable that atherogenic responses may occur early in life.

The age dependence of the effects may also be codetcnnined by genetic factors (Humphries and Morgan 2004; Ross 1999).

We also obselVed larger effects in women. If other cardiovascular risk factors such as occupational exposures dominate atherosclerosis in men. we would expect a smaller effect signal and less precision in the estimates among men. We also hypothesize that interactions may reflect biologic causes. If premenopausal women are protected against atherosclerosis by endogenous hormones, toss of hormonal protection would lead to increased vulnerability after menopause (Kannel et at 1976). This could explain part of the interaction by both age and sex.

Active and passive smoking did not confound results in either the total sample or among -subgroups. Adjustment for active tobacco smoke led to a slight increase in the effect estimate; thus, residual confounding is unlikely to overestimate the effecls. However, PM2.
5 associations were clearly stronger in never smokers compared with smokers (da~a not shown).

This gradient was also observed in all subgroups with significant PM2.

S associations (Figure 3). OXidative and inflammalory
effects of smoking may dominate to such an extent that the additional exposure to ambient air pollutants may not further enhance effects along the same pathways. The difference in the effects of PM2. 5 in smokers and nonsmokers needs
further investigation. The American Cancer Society cohort study does not reveal a dear pattern of a smoking interaction for the association of ambient air pollution and cardiovascular -dealh (Krewski et at 2004; Pope et al. 2004). In the Study on Air Pollution and Lung Diseases in Adults (SAPALDIA). associations between air pol/ution and level of pulmonary function did not differ by smoking status (Ackermann~Uebrjch et al. 1997).

Some u.s. studies indicate effect modification of air pollution by socioeconomic status (SES) with much stronger effects among the less educated (Pope et at 2002). The cause of this interaction pattern is n01 well understood. SES status was rather homogeneous in these mosUy well~educated volunteers, providing little power to investigate interactions of pollution with SES. If lower SES also positively modifies effects of air pollution on atherosderosis, our population would provide an underestimate of the health effects in the general population (O'Neill et al. 2003). Further research on samples representative of the population will be needed to assess whether the high SES in the clinical trials biases the effects toward the null.

Future research should focus on identifying factors that determine susceptibility 10 PM2.

S' We are initiating studies on
subjects with inflammatory metabolic syndromes prone to accelerated atherosclerosis such as postmenopausal women, diabetics, or obese or physically inactive people. To corroborate the cross-sectional findings, follow~up studies are ultimately needed 10 investiga.te the association of concurrent levels of air pollution exposure with the progression of eIMT.

Plausibility. From a biologic perspective, our results support the hypothesis that long·term exposure to ambient PM contributes to systemic inflammatory pathways, which are a relevant aspect of atherogenesis (Ross 1999). The findings indicate a biologically plausible link between the observed acute effects of ambient air pollution on systemic inHammation (Glanlz 2002) and the long~term consequences of sustained vascular inHammation leading to increased atherosclerosis and, ultimately, cardiovascular death (Hoek et al. 2002; Pope et at 2004). Among susceptible people, this may lead to artery wall lesions similar to those observed in the rabbit model (Fujii et at 2002; Suwa et al. 2002). In these hyperlipidemic rabbits, 4 w week PM exposure was associated with the progression of atherosclerotic lesions, coupled with an enhanced release of bone marrow monocy1es. These precursors or macrophages play an important role in the atherogenic inflammatory responses (Goto et at 2004; Ross 1999; Suwa et al. 2002). Given the central role of oxidized lDL in the initialion and progression or atherogenesis, suggestions that the plasma of automotive workers with high exposure to traffic exhaust is more susceptible to oxidation is also of interest (Sharman et al. 2002).

As a quantitative plausibility check, we compared the size of the PM2. 5 effects with eHects of other risk fadors on CIMT.

Using smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a model for air pollution exposure, the size of our estimates appear plausible (Diez~Roux et al. 1995; Howard et al. 1994). Associations of ETS and current levels of air pollution with various respiratory outcomes are similar and support the notion of common underlying pathways (KUnzli 2002). Smoking and ETS assodate with stiffer and thicker artery walls, reflecting the systemic effect oflhese exposures (Howard et at 1994; Mack el al. 2003). Exposure to ETS was associated with 2-3% thicker intima~media, which approximate the effects obs8IVed for a 10 J-1g/mJ change in PM2.
5 (Diez-Raux et aJ. 1995; Howard et aL "1994). Using never smokers without ETS exposure as the referent group in our data, never smokers with ETS at home had 0.9% (~2.7 to 4.5%) thicker artery walls; former smokers' CIMT was increased on average by 3.4% (0. 7~6.3%), and the 30 current smokers had 5% (~1.5 to 11.6%) thicker CIMT. The trend across these four categories of tobacco exposure was statistically significant. As shown in Table 1. smokers were underrepresented in these volunteers of well-educated participants.

The obselVed percent change in elMT corresponds to an increase in the thickness of approximately 20~40 JJm per 10 bnp://ehp.niehs.nib.gov/membersl20041752317523.html 21l5/2005 01885
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1144, Packet Page 1472 .. __________ - ____ ------ ------ ---~ '" ............. UAO .... • .... " rugt: I or ";I 1-19fm3 contrast in PM2_
S' This difference in CIMT translates into some 3-6% increase in the long-term risk for myocardial infarction (O'Leary et at 1999)_ Pope et at (2004) reported thai long-term exposure to PM2. 5 was a~sociated with an 18%
(14-23%) increase in ischemic heart disease. Effect sizes reported here concur with these findings, indicating that a fraction of the total effect of ambient PM on cardiovascular mortality may be mediated through sustained long-term effects of air pollution on atherosclerosis (KOnzli et al. 2001). This is in line with the proposed model (KOnzii et al. 2001) in which some of the effects observed in cohort studies must reflect long-tenn contributions of air pollution to the underlying disease progreSSion, whereas in other cases, air pollution contributes only to triggering of cardiovascular events or death (Bell et al. 2004; KOnzli et aL 2001; Peters and Pope 2002)_
From a biologic and policy perspective, we emphasize that PM2. 5 pro~ably serves as a surrogate for the mixture of urban air pollution and constituents of PM. It is premature to condude that PM2. 5 and its constiluents are the atherogenic culprit
per seA Atherosderosis results from comple)( processes that may indude a combinalion of various urban ppllutants, host fadors, and pathways that ultimately lead to the findings of a CIMT -PM2. 5 association.

In conclusion, we have presented the first epidemiologic evidence supponing the idea of a chronic vascular response to respiratory and systemic effects of PM exposure. Given the leading role of heart disease as a cause of death in most westernized countries and the growing contribution In developing countries, these findings may be of high public heallh relevance. Further investigations need to focus on susceptible groups and follow-up of cohorts to investigate the effect of air pollution on the progression of CIMT.

References
Ackermann-Uebrich U, lel,lenberget P, Schwartz J. Schindler C, Monn C, 801ogninl G, etal. 1997. Lung function and long term exposure to afr pollutants in Switlerfand_ Study on Air Pollution and Lung Oj~eases in Adults (SAPAlDIA) Team. Am J Respir CritCare Med 155(1): 122-129.

Avol El. Navidi WC. Colome SO. 1998. Modeling OlOnoleyels in and around Southern California home~. Environ Sci TedlnoI32;463-468.

Bailey T, Gatrell A. 1995.lnteracUve Spati31 Data Analysis. New York:loogmart.

Becker S. SoukupJM, Gilmour MI, Deviin RB. 1996_ Stimulation 01 human and rat alyeolar macrophages by urban ail" particulates: eflects on oxidant radical genef<llion and cylokine production. Toxicol App/ Pharmacol141(2): 631-648 •.

Bell ML, Samet JM, Dominici F. 2004. Time-series studies 01 parliculate matter_Annu Rev Public Health 25:247-290.

Brook RD. Ff<lrlklin B, Cascio W. Hong Y. Howard G_ Upsett M, et at 2004. Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: a sialemenllor heallhcare professionals from !he Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American HearlAssociation. Circulation 109(21).2655-2671.

BUfJough P. McDonnell R 1998. Principles of Geographlcallnformatlon Systems. New York:Oxford University Press.

Diez·Roux AV, Nieto F J, Comstock GW, Howard G, Szklo M. 1995. The relationship of actiye and passive smokin!l to carotid atherosderosis 12-14 years later. Prev Med 24(1):46-55.

Dye JA. Lehmann JR, McGee JK, Winsett OW. Ledbetter AD, Everitt Jr, et al. 2001. Awte pulffiOflary toxicity of partictl!ate matter filter e)Ctracts in rats: coherence willl epidemiologic studies in Utah Valley residents. Environ Health Perspect 10!l(suppl 3):395-403.

ESRI. 2004. ArcGIS. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. AYailable: bt!p;IMw.w...e~dJ;.oro1MlfMi!lli'~r.g;.llilinQmc..1Jlm:l [accessed 29 December 2004}.

Fujii T, HayaShi S. Hogg JC, Mukae H. Suwa T. Goto Y, et al. 2002. Interaction of alveolar tnacroph"ges and ahway epithelial cells followin9 exposure to particulate matler pmduccs mediators thalstimulale the bone marrow. Am J Resp!r Cel! Mol BloI27(1):34-41.

GaudefTll3n WJ. Gilliland GF. VorB H, Avo! E, Stram D. McConne" R. et aI. 2002. Associaotln between air pollution and lung runcUon growth in Southem California ch~dren: results from a second cohOrt. Am J Resplrenl Care Med 166(1):76-64.

Glantz SA. 2002. Air poUulion as a cause of heartdjsease. Time for action. J Am Calf CardioI39{6j: 943-945.

Gotn Y. HOQg JC. Shih CH.lshii H, Viocent R. van Eeden SF_ 2004. Exposure 10 ambicntparticles accelerates monocyle release from the bone marrow in ati1arosderotic rabbits. Am J Physiollun9 Cell Mol Physicl 267: l79·65.

HOOis HN, MaCk WJ. LaBree l, Mahrer PR, Sevanian A. liu CR. et al. 2002. Alpha-tocopherol supplementation in healthy irldiyiduals reduces low-density lipoprotein oxidation but not atherosderosis: the Vilamin E Atherosderosis Prevention StUdy (VEAPS}. Circulation 106(12): 1453-1459.

Hoek G, Brunekreel B. Go!dbohm S. Fischer p. van den Brandl PA 2002. Associaborl between morlality and indicators of traffic-related air pol!ution in the 01886
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/membersl20041752317523.html 2/15/2005 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1145, Packet Page 1473 .' · - - --- --- ---- --~o-~-~
Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet 360{9341}:1203~1209.

Howard G, Burke Gl. Szklo M, Tell GS, Ec\deldt J, Evans G, et aI. 1994. AcUve and passive smoking arc associated with increased carotid waillhickness. The Alherosderosis Risk in Communities S(u.dy. Arch Intern Med 154(11):1277-1262.

Howard G, Wagenknecht lE, Burtte GL, Diez~RoUJ<:A. Evans GW. McGovern p, et at 199B. Ciga~ette smoking and progression of alherosclemsis: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (MIG) Siudy. JAMA 279(2):119-124.

Humphries SE, Morgan l. 2004. Genetic risk factols for stroke and carotid atherosclerosis: insights into pathophysiology from candidate gene approaches. lancet Neuml 3(4):227 -235. .

Jertett M, Burnett R, Gotdberg M. Sears M, Krcwski D, Catalan R,.elal. 2003'1. Spatial analysis for enyironmental health research: concepts, methods, and examples. J Toxico! Enyiron Health A 66(16.19):1783.1610.

Jarrett M. Burnett RT, Willis A, Krewski 0, Goldberg MS, Deluca p. el al. 2003b. Spatial analysis of the air pollution-mortality relationship in the context of ecologic confounders. J Toxico! Environ HeallhA 66(16.19): 1735--1777.

KannelVv'B,J-ljorUand Me. McNamara PM, Gordon T. 1976. Menopause and risk of cardioY3scu!ardisease: the Framingham study. Ann·lntern Med 85(4):447-452.

Karim R, Buchanan TA. Hodis HN, U Y. Mack WJ. 2005. The association of smokiRg and subclinical atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetes: modir!C3lion by duration of diabetes. Diabel Med 22(1}:el-B7.

Krewski 0, Bumet( RT, Goldberg MS. Hoover K. Siemiatycki J, Abrahamowicz M, el al. 2004. Validation of the Harvard Six Cllies Study of particulate 31r pollution and mortality. N Engl J Med J50(2):19B~199.

Kunrli N. 2002. Tbe public health refevance of air pollution abatement_ Ell! Respir J20(1): 198-209_ Kijnzij N. Medina S, KaiserR, Quenel P. Horak FJ, Sludnicka M. 200! Assessment of deaths attributable to aif"pollution: Should we use fis~ estimates based on Ume series or on cohort studjes? Am J EpidemioI15J(11):1050.1055_ KU01:ri N, TagH r. 2000. Long-term health.effects of parti"cula!e and other ambienl airponu1ion: research can progress faslerifWflwant it 10. Environ Health Perspect 10B:915_918.

I<wan MP ,Lee J. 20M. Geovisualizalion of human activity patterns using 30 GIS: a lime--geographic approllch. In: Spatially Integraled Social Sdence: Examples in Best Practice (Goodchild MF, Janelle DG, eds). New York:Oxford University Press, 48-GG.

Leech JA, Nelson we, Burnett RT, Aaron S, Raitenne ME. 2002_ It's about time: a comparison of Canadian and American time-llctivity patterns. J Expo Anal Environ EpidemioI12(6):427-432.

Mack WJ,IsJam T.Lee Z. Selzer RH, Hoois HN. 2003. Enyironmentallobacco ~moke and carotid arterial sliffness. Prey Med 37(2):146-154.

Mack WJ.laBree L. Uu C, Seiter RH, Hodls HN. 2000. Conelations between measures of athe(osdefosis change usinQ carotid ultra .. onogtaphy and coronary angiography. Alherosclerosls 150(2):371~379.

O'Leary OH, Polak JF. Kronmal RA. ManoUo TA, BuJi;e Gl. Wolfson SK Jr. 199~. Carotid-artery intima and medIa thfckMss as a risk lactor for myocaroialinfarction and slroke in older aduns. Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. N Eng! J Med 340(1): 14-22.

O'Ne~1 MS. Jerrett M, Kawachi I, levy JI. Cohen AJ, Gouveia N, el at 2003. Health, wealth, and air ponution: advancing theory and methods. Environ Health Petspect 111:1B61-1670.

Peters A. Pope CA. 2002. Cardiopulmonary mortality and air poHution. Lancet J60{93" 1}:1164·1185.

Pope CA. Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski 0.110 K, et af. Z002.Lung cancer. cardiopulmonary mortality, and lon!l-term ell-posurelo line particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9):1132-1141.

Pope CA. Burnett RT, Thurston GO, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewsl\j D, el 011. 2004. Cardiovascular mortality and Iong·lerm exposure 10 particulate air poilution:
epidemiological evidence 01 general pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation 109(1):71·77.

RiediKer M, Williams R, Devlin R, Griggs T. Bromberg P. 2003_ Exposure (0 particulate matter. volatile olganic compounds, and other air poillllants inside patrol cars. Em.'iron Sd Technol37(10):2084-2093.

RODSIi M, Braul"l-fahrjander C, KOnzli N, Oglesby L, Theis G, Camenzind M, et al. 2000. Spatial variabDity of differentfraclions of pClrticurale maUerwilhin an urban environment and between urban and rufal sites. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 50(7):1115--1124. 01887 Ross R. 1999. Atherosclerosis_an inflammatory disease N Engl J Med J-'lO{Zl:115-126.

Samet JM, Dominici F, Curnelo Fe, COUfsac I, Zeger Sl. 2000. Fine particulate air pollution and mortalilyin 20 U.S. cities. 1987·1994. N Engl J Med 34J(24): 1742· 1749.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.goY/members/20041752317523.htmi 2/1512005 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1146, Packet Page 1474 --- --- --- ---o---~
SamatJ, f(oulrakis p. Suh H. 2000_ Assessing Ihe relationshp bc:lWeenpen;onal partlculate and gaseous cxposurcs of senIor clfu:ens living in Baltimore, MD. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 50{7):1184-1198.

Samat JA. Long eM, Kootrakis p. Coull BA. SchwalILJ, Suh HH. 2002. Using sulfur as a tracer of outdoor fine particulate matter. Envjron Sci TechnoI36(24): 5305- 53t4.

Selzer RH, Hodjs HN. Kwong-Fu H, Mack WJ, Lee Pl, liu CR, et aI. 1994. Evaluation of computerized edge tracking for quantifying intima--rnedia Ihicl:.ness of the common carotid artery from B-mode ullfasound images. AlherosderosTs111(1):1-11.

Selzer RH. Mack WJ.lee Pl, Kwong-Fu H, Hodis HN. 2001. Improved common carotid elasticity and intima-media Ihickness measurements from computer analysis of sequential ultrasound trames. Atherosclerosis 154{1): 105-193.

Sharman JE, Coombes JS, Geraghty DP, fraser 01. 2002. Exposure to automotive pollulion increases plasma $usceplib~ity to oxidation. Arch Environ Health 57{6>:
536-540.

Stein JH. Douglas PS. Srinivasan SR, Bond MG, Tang R, li S. el al. 2004_ Oistribu1ioo and cross-sectional age·related increases of carotid artery intima-media thickness in young adulls. The Bogalusa Heart Study. Stmke 35: 2782-2187.

Suwa T, Hog9 JC, Quinlan KB, Ohyaml A, Vincent R, van Eeden SF. 2002. Particulale air pollution induces progression of athemsclerosis. J Am Coli Cardfol 39(6):
935-942.

Thomas D. Stram 0, Dwyer J. 1993, E)(posure measurement error: innuence on exposure~disease relationships and methods of correction. Annu Rev Publ Health 14:69·93.
van Earle" SF, Tan we, Suwa T, Mukae H. Terashima T. Fujii T. et aL 2001. CytokinesiOllolved in the systemic inHammatory re$pcnse induced by exposure 10 particulate matte. air pol!ulants (PMw)' Am J Respir C,it Care Med 164(5):026-830.

Wiegman A, Hutlen BA, de Groot E, Rodenburg J. Bakker HD, Buller HR, et at 2004 Efficacy and safety of statin therapy In children Witt"! familial hypercholesterolemia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292(3}:l31-337.

Witiekoek ME, de Groot E, Prins MH, Trip MD, B\lner UR, Kastelei JJ. 1999. Dilferences in intima-media. ihicknOlss in thl~ carolid and femoral arteries in familial hypercholesterolemic hete/ozygoles wilh and without clinical manifestations of cardiovascular disease. AthelOsc1erosis 146(2):271-279.

Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. 2002. Cardiovascular damage by airborne particles: are diabelics more susceptlble1 Epidemiology 13(5):588-592. last Up:lated: January 12, 2005
01888
http://chp.niehs.nih.gov/membersl2004!7523!7523.html 211512005 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1147, Packet Page 1475 " .

WAl~MART'S IMPACTS ON THE

AMERICAN SUPERMARKET INDUSTRY
Prepared by
Dr. David Rogers
President
DSR Marketing Systems Inc.
108 Wilmot Road. Suite 245
Deerfield. Illinois 60015
TEL: 847/940-8200
FAX: 847/940-8237 .
email:[email protected]
February 10, 2004
00674 000144
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1148, Packet Page 1476

SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to detail Wal-Mart's entry into the American grocery industry, and identify the impacts of this entry.

As of January 2004, Wal-Mart offers a full supermarket selection at 1,471 Supercenters and 65 Neighborhood Markets and controls about 11 % of the total U.S. grocery market through its four (4) store formats (including the Discount Stores and Sam's Club). In three (3) states, Wal-Mart's market share already exceeds 40%. At its current store opening pace, Wal-Mart will command at least 17% of the U.S. grocery business in five (5) years, i.e. by January 2009.

It is estimated that every new Wal-Mart Supercenter will ultimately close two (2) supermarkets, while each new Neighborhood Market will replace one (1) supermarket. Such impacts will shutter more than 2,200 supermarkets throughout the USA over the next five years, and lead to an increasing number of cities and states where Wal-Mart has a monopolistic position . . While some argue this is the next phase in the evolution of grocery retailing, it must be recognized that never before has so much of the grocery industry been concentrated in the hands of one company. Moreover, this consolidation is largely in the form of big box retailing requiring customers to travel further to conduct their grocery shopping. This trend has long-term implications for environmental and quality of life issues such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and the overall sense of community.

The consolidation of the grocery business is also impacting the manufacturing sector by placing an inordinate amount of negotiating power in the hands of one retailer. Manufacturers and suppliers will increasingly have to adapt to Wal-Mart's terms or lose access to Wal-Mart's increasing share of consumer spending. Wal-Mart's emphasis on the lowest price has pushed production abroad (Wal-~rt reportedly now accounts for over 10% of all U.S. imports from China) and put many American producers at risk. This has placed added downward pressure on the wages and benefits paid by employers in both the retail and manufacturing sectors of the U.S. economy.
00675 000125 .-~ i ~ ~ : ... 1
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1149, Packet Page 1477 SUMMARY (Continued)
Based on the example of Oklahoma City, Wal-Mart's increasing dominance of grocery retailing will have the following longer-term effects: -
• Planning
Big box retailing will continue to sap the economic vitality of downtowns. Adding food to superstores will also result in the closure of neighborhood sUpermarkets creating additional physical blight and decay in suburban areas. These closures also have inevitable consequences for adjacent retailers and the affected shopping centers .
. Increased traffic, air pollution, and infrastructure costs will result from the reinforced trend to big box retailing.
• Economic
The job losses at conventional neighborhood supermarkets are not equaled in number, nor in wages and benefits, by the positions created at \Nal-Mart.

Reduced real estate values will result at the shopping centers with vacant supermarkets. This will lead to the waste and abandonment of existing public and private investments in buildings and other community assets.

Beyond these direct effects, living standards will be reduced as a result of the lower wages and benefits offered across all retail and manufacturing channels. • Competition
When the number of competitors is reduced, so is consumer choice. There will . be a reduction in product choices, service levels, and the other amenities that are typically offered in a diverse competitive climate.

Further, the impact on prices may not turn out as expected. Wal-Mart argues it brings low prices (in the short-term) but if a local monopoly results from WalMart's massed market entries there are no competitive safeguards for the longerterm. Prices may then increase. 2 00676
.~
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1150, Packet Page 1478 ..

SUMMARY (Continued)
• Environmental
Larger grocery stores C3nd Supercenters require geographically larger trade areas. As C3 result, driving-distances and driving-times will increase .... stimulating further increases in traffic congestion and air pollution. In addition, the poor and the elderly are particulC3r1y disadvantaged as shopping choices become fewer in number and more remote from their homes.
00677
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1151, Packet Page 1479

WAL-MART STORE DEVELOPMENTS
After an unsuccessful test with its Hypermart USA format in the 1980's, Wal-Mart entered the grocery business seriously with its first Sugercenter in Washington, Missouri in 1988. The Supercenter format underwent several years of testing by Wal-Mart and by 1993 there were only 34 in the U.S.

The Wal-Mart Supercenter format essentially adds a 65,000 sq~ flsupermarket to a standard Wal-Mart discount store. Please refer to· Exhibit 1.

The first Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market opened in 1999. These are stand-alone supermarkets of approximately 46,000 sq. ft. which are designed to fill the voids between Supercenters in urban areas. Please refer to Exhibit 2.

By the end of 2003, there were 1,471 Supercenters and 65 Neighborhood Markets operating in the USA (see Table 1 below). Wal-Mart is planning between 220 and 230 Supercenters in 2004 of which approximately two-thirds (or 150) will be expansions or replacements of existing discount stores and the rest will be new stores. Additionally, Wal-Mart is still expanding its Sam's Clubs. Groceries and consumables comprise about 62% of Sam's Club sales, about 60% of which are to consumers rather than to businesses.

Over the coming years, Wal-Mart will add more grocery space than the three (3) largest supermarket chains combined. Wal-Mart will open 50 million square feet of new space during 2004, of which 15.8 million square feet will be grocery space in Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets. In contrast, Kroger, Albertson's and Safeway opened a combined 11.3 million square feet in 2003.

Year End
January
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
.

ViaI·Mart
Supercenters
10 34
72 147
239
344
441
5U
721
888
1,066
1,258
1,471
Table 1
NUMBER OF Wal·Mart STORES
Neighborhood
4 7
19 31
49 65
4 Sam's Clubs
208
266
417
426
433
436
443
451
463
475
500
525
537
Discount
Stores
1,714
1,848
1,950
1,985
1,995
1,960
1,921
1,869
1,801
1,736
1,647
1,568
1,478
00678
}.
,
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1152, Packet Page 1480 - .'
WAl-MART'S MARKET SHARE
Grocery sales encompass the.food and non-food items typically sold by most supermarkets.

That is, including pharmacy, paper products, cosmetics, pet food, etc.

Wal-Mart's grocery sales take place through four (4) different store types and vary in significance. Table 2 below identifies WaJ-Mart's U.S. grocery sales by store type for the years ending in January 2000,2003, and 2006. In 2000, Wal-Mart was already the largest grocery retailer in the United States with combined sales of $57 billion. By 2006, Wal-Mart's grocery sales of $140 billion will be greater than the next three (3) leading grocery chains combined: - Discount Stores
Supercenters
Sam's Clubs
Neighborhood Marl<ets
TOTAL
Table 2
WAL·MART GROCERY SALES BY FISCAL YEAR
2000 2003
JL l..ilinl .J!. iilinJ
1,801 18.9 1,568 20.5
721 22.5 1,258 55.7
463 15.4 525 19.7
7 0.1 49 0.8

56.9 96.7
J1
1,300
1,891·
573
125
2006
iillnJ

19.6 94.0

24.1 2.3
140.0
Based on our definition of the grocery market, Wal-Mart currently captures 11 % of the total U.S. grocery business, and this market share will rise to over 14% by 2006:- Fiscal
Year
2000
2003
2006
Table 3

WAL-MART'S MARKET SHARE
Tolal US
Groceryl
Consumables Sales
($ Bn.)
743.2
676.4
981.4
Estimated
Total Wal-Mart Groceryl
Consumables Sales
($Bn.)

56.9 96.7
140.0
Wal-Mart
%

7.7 11.0

14.3 Wal-Mart's grocery sales are mushrooming not only because they are opening so many Supercenters, but also because these new stores are maturing and increasing sales during the first three (3) to five (5) years of their operation. For example, a new Supercenter may only do $500,000 per week in grocery and consumables sales during its first year of operations but by Year 3 or 4 it could be achieving sales in excess of $aOO,OOO weekly. 00679 OOO:l29
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1153, Packet Page 1481 WAL~MART'S MARKET SHARE (Continued)
Wal-Mart's 11.0% share of the grocery/consumables market includes many States where WalMart's entry into the grocery industry is yet undeveloped. Therefore, the current national average market share figure is a poor indicator of Wal,Mart's future potential and impact. A better indication of the future is to be found in those States where Wal~Mart has already focused its efforts. The Shelby Report (Atlanta, Georgia) publishes the estimated grocery market shares for an 18-State area throughout the U.S. southeast and southwest (please refer to the map below). By the end of 2003, Wal-Mart captured 23% of al/ the grocery sales in these 18 States.

Furthermore, in markets where Wal-Mart's Supercenters have been operating for more than five (5) years, such as Arkansas, Oklahoma and Mississippi, its market share is in excess of 40%.

Since these data do not include the significant grocery sales taking place through Sam's Clubs and the traditional Wal-Mart discount stores, they undoubtedly underestimate Wal-Mart's actual market shares.

WAL*MART
Grocery Market Share • 1212003
Wal-Hart's share of an 111'~cl'"~''' area = 23%
Source: The Sltelby Reporl
6 00680

1. ,.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1154, Packet Page 1482

THE OKLAHOMA CITY EXPERIENCE
Introduction
Oklahoma City provides one of the best indicators of the long-term impacts of Wal-Mart's entry . into the grocery market because it was the first major metropolit(3n area+ to feel the full effects of a massed Wal-Mart saturation attack.

Wal-Mart's Entry
Wal-Mart opened its first Supercenter in the Oklahom(3 City metropolitan area in 1992. By 1997, there were still only three (3) Supercenters in the metropolitan area and no Neighborhood Markets. However, by year end 2003, these numbers had increased to 13 Supercenters and 7 Neighborhciod Markets. Please refer to Exhibits 3 throughB.

According to The Shelby Report, Wal-Mart accounted for a 42% share of all the grocery sales in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area by December 2003. Of the 42%, 33% took place through the Supercenters and 9% were gained by the Neighborhood Markets.

In the next two (2) years, Wal-Mart will add at least two (2) Supercenters and two (2) Neighborhood Markets in the Oklahoma Citymarket... .. producing a total of 24 grocery format stores. This store count - which does not include three (3) discount stores and three (3) Sam's Clubs - will represent one Wal-Mart grocery store per 46,000 people.

Between 1997 and 2003, Wal-Mart hasadded 2,400,000 sq. ft. of retail space to the Oklahoma City market and, of this, approximately 972,000 sq. ft. has been in the form of grocery space·: - Store Type
Discount Stores
Supercenters
Sam's Clubs
Neighborhood Markets
Total
Net Change
Table 4
WAl·MART STORES BY FORMAT
1997
9 3
2 Q
14 No. of Stores
2003
3 13
3 Z
26 +12
1997
664
555
248
Q
1,667
Sq. Ft. of Space
2003
288
2,405
372
322
3,387
+1,720
+ The population of the Oklahoma City metro area is currently about 1.1 million. • Excluding Sam's ClUb.
00681 .,
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1155, Packet Page 1483 THE OKLAHOMA CITY EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Impacts
Wal-Mart's focused assault on the Oklahoma City grocery market has had an inevitable impact on pre-existing supermarkets. Between July 1998 and the end of 2003, thirty-cine (31) supermarkets in the Oklahoma City area - representing a total of 1.24 million square feet of floorspace - have closed and remain vacant. Ten (10) of these were chain supennarkets and twenty-one (21) were independents. Please refer to Exhibits 6 and 7, and the accompanying photographs which are presented as Exhibit 8.

The opening of seventeen (17) new Wal-Mart grocery stores between 1998 and 2003 has, therefore, already produced the closure of 31 competitors .... a ratio of almost two (2) closures for each new Wal-Mart store. Additional store closures will occur as the impacts of the Wal-Mart store openings work their way through the local economy .... and more Wal-Mart stores open in . 2004-5.

Wal-Mart has also closed five (5) of its discount stores and two (2) Sam's Clubs .... leaving an additional 538,000 sq. ft. of vacant space on the local real estate market. Please refer to Exhibit

9. Besides producing extensive store closures, Wal-Mart's massed assault on the Oklahoma City market has also dissuaded full-size supermarket competitors from opening new stores. Only one (1) new conventional supermarket has opened in the metro area since 1998 (the Albertson's .. in Yukon) and two (2) Target Supercenlers. Buy For Less and Crest Foods have opened a combined four (4) stores but these were all takeovers of existing supermarkets+.

In our opinion, within the next three years, Wal-Mart's share of the Oklahoma City grocery market will exceed 50%.

Competitive Issues
The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) both measure market competitiveness using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). This index is derived by + There have been a small number of store-openings by Save-A-Lot and, more recently, Aid; but these are both Limited Assortment Store operators which do not offer a full range of grocery products.
8 00682
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1156, Packet Page 1484 THE OKLAHOMA CITY EXPERIENCE (Continued)
summing the squares of the market shares of all competitors. \Nhen the HHI for a market reaches 1,800, the FTC judges compet~ion to be significantly restricted (Le. monopolistic).

It is estimated that the HHI for the Oklahoma City grocery market stood at only 645 in 1997 with Wal-Mart accounting for 33 points. However, based on The Shelby Report's market share estimates in December 2003, the Oklahoma City HHI is now 2,049, of which Wal-Mart accounts for 1,721 points. In our opinion, there is a clear and significant danger that a monopoly is being established in Oklahoma City that could have negative long-term impacts on prices and consumer choice.
00683
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1157, Packet Page 1485 o
,~
~ ,~
~
~
m
>< ::r
_.
c::r _.

P"'t'-
..,.\,
Exhibit 1
o
o
0)
!WAL*MART SUPERCENTER
w:"og
Boys' &. GIrl' .. We .. ,
M«w'
WorIcWear
Man'.

Wear
Socks & Ho1OOry
Intlm .. la ..

AcceS80tfes
Ladle .. Wear

REGISTERS
Fumftu'e
Ho,...,#t o.DOr'
~O~l8. 'GOft 0.08 ,
Cnrds 1
Jewelry
EMoc:tronica
Oom_l.~'
H~teS
Hon'\eI Small
Ofnoe ApplClIIOOes
"1'
~
/ile ... one:'
"
o I ".0
~ii!ll!I!1 bl u 11!1D-t • •
Car
C<ve
'royoo
i\re. lI. Lu'tio Ext>N>h
,I
,~
~
00 .a::=-.

ENTR.ANCE ENTRANCE '3055 E. Rc:i"c~o-S<:rnta Fe Blvd.

Avondale, AZ ~, Gro~ery Only o Other supermarket Type Merchandise (STM) "'.~).:.£ ... . ... ,,~.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1158, Packet Page 1486 .c
.-
w
><
" '
00685 Exhibit 2 •. .l.. .. ~,' .... _.......-;.._.~ --
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1159, Packet Page 1487 ~~.
~~ =t:',
~'
~'
~
o
o
0)
CO
0)
m
x
=r _.

C" _ .
.....

W
Exhibit 3: OKe WalmartLocations 1997
\
\,-".

Legand
• W.lmert $u~~m.'
• Sam's Club
o 5 "\~.R.dll.ls 1997
MI~rkM. C2003 ScanIUS
• '00 Census Places 1K-.
- U.S.lntel"tUlt .. 1~100T
[l2000 Count ...
o 2 6
3& Scale: 1" .&,~ ~I ..
.'Q9~2003
01)19/04
"
'~,~v:;,;'
Inc. AllfI¢'b
,I
•
. ~ I ~
• Piedmont
Mustang
• Tutt,*
• Jones
DSR MarketIng Systems, Inc.
",
:II
Mc:l.oud
-~
t .
a.tt.., Acnr"
• PIn\(
.• 'J
........... "
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1160, Packet Page 1488 o
o
en
(X)
.......
m
>< :::r _.

C'" _ .
....
~
o '0
e
w
-.;l
Exhibit 4: OKe Walmart Locations 2003
'\ \
\.

Legend
• Wlllmllrt Su~reel1ter
• $.am'. Club
• W.lm.n N.IOhborhood . Marllet
o Z Mile RIt<1fcn
o SMile RaQ/\I$
- U,S.lnHlrstates, 1:100T
o 2 '\ 0 8
M' ~:'". 0.1104 mllM
01119104
'r ,
,'~
-. Piedmont
.- Jones
DSR Marketing Systema, Inc,
~
,~
t'.

Bfl-hltl Acres
-:a:u:c:::z;.c.r¥ .... !l __ ... :::, .... ·
• Pink
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1161, Packet Page 1489 Year Opened
1983
1986-7
1992
1994
1995
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2003
2003
To Open
2004
2004
2005?
2005?
• NOTES:

Exhibit 5
OKLAHOMA CITY WALMARl" LOCA nONS
(as of December 2003)
Store
~ Store "If.

Sam's 8241
Sam's 8289
SC 221
SC 227
SC 277
SC 564
SC 212
SC 2734
NM 3275
NM 2876
NM 2393
NM 2877
NM 2875
NM 2394
NM 2878
SC 2803
SC 622
SC 2804
Sam's 4731
SC 1626
Sam's 8117
SC 743
SC 517
SC 1056
Store
Type· Store #
NM'< ?
NM ?
SC ?
SC ?
SC = Supercenter
NM = Neighborhood Market
Sam's = Sam's Club
Location
6520 Sf 29th
5510 SW5th
Garth Brooks & 1-40
1-40/Country
19th & 1-35
MacArthur & 1-40
1-35 & Main
Alameda/6thl121Main
164th & Western
2nd 8. Bryant
Eastern & 9th
Rockwell & Hefner
NW23rd & MacArthur
Penn & SW 59th
Western & SW 104th
Danforth & Santa Fe
Northwest Hwy & Council
1-44 & Classen
Northwest Hwy & Council
Penn & Memorial
Penn & Memorial
1-240 & Shields
State Hwy 152 & Sara Rd.

Northwest 32nd Sl
Location
Britton & Pennsylvania
SW 44th & Westem
1-35 & SE 15th
?
00688
·
,;.

City
Midwest City
Oklahoma City
Yukon
EIReno
Moore
Oklahoma City
Norman
Norman
Edmond
Edmond
Moore
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Edmond
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma city
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Mustang
Newcastle
City
The Village
Oklahoma City
Edmond
Midwest City
Exhibit 5
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1162, Packet Page 1490 --~
J.: ! -! ~ ~ 1 ~\J] .;,4'-: i:1J ~ T 1 , • ~ : .1 1"1 1 I _ L i I . I I i ti. ., 1 T Ii FF :,' . : i I . ~
w
><
.cCW)
,,-
.c.-
.-
00689
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1163, Packet Page 1491 Map
Key
2 3
9 89
87 96
93 94
82 79
84 71
70 72
21 23
26 15
46 44
41 74
77 80
18 76
27 73
35 103
Exhibit 7
CLOSED OKLAHOMA CITY AREA SUPERMA.RKETS SINCE JUL Y 1998 (Facility not subsequently occupied by a supermarket)
City Store Name ell" location
Edmond Snyder'sJlGA . I Danforth & Kelly
Food World/Jim's IGA+ I Bryant & Danforth
Homeland C 2nd & Broadway
Moore Buchanan's IGA 4th & Eastern
Pratt's 12th & Eastern
Norman· Buy For Less (Goodner's) Main Street & 24th Ave. SW Buy For Less (Goodner's) 12th and Alameda
Wright's IGA 12th & Alameda
Pratt's 12th & lindsey
Oklahoma City Albertson's' C SW 104th & Western
Buchanan's IGA I SW 89th & Pennsylvania
Buchanan'S IGA I SW119th & Western
Don's Food Fair I SW59th & May
Spencer's Super Thrift/Grider's"- I SW59th & May
Don's Food Fair I SW 59th & Pennsylvania
IGA Super Thrift I Hefner & May
Food World/Jim's IGA+ I NW 122nd & MacArthur
Homeland/lGA+ C Northwest Hwy & Rockwell
Homelandz C Pennsylvania & Britton
Homeland/Ba ker's+ C NW 23rd & Pennsylvania
Homeland C NW 16th & Drexel .

Homeland C NW 23rd & Ann Arbor
Homeland C SE 59th & Walker
Homeland/Price Chopper+ C 1-240 & Pennsylvania
Homeland" C SW 89th & Pennsylvania
IGA Super Thrift 1 NW63rd&May
Pratt's I 1-240 & Walker
Price Mart I Northwest Hwy & Rockwell
Super Foods/Sav-Mor 1 SW 59th & Western
Pratt's 1 39th & Portland
Yukon Snyder's IGA Cornwell Road and Main Sl
TOTAL
• C (Chain) or 1 (Independent)
+ Closed twice under two (or more) different ownerships. 1 Replaced at former Homeland/Baker's at 104th/Pennsylvania. % To be demolished and replaced by a Walrnart Neighborhood Markel " Part converted to a Hong Kong Markel
00690
.~ ~ I
Total
Area
(Approx. sq. ft.)
65,000
33,000
34,000
26,000
42,000
61,000
42,000
30,700
30,000
51,000
31,000
30,000
18,000
29,000
18,000
43,000
31,000
56,000
46,000
61,000
35,000
29,000
38,000
70,000
48,000
26,000
56,000
65,000
20,000
35,000
41,000
1,240,700
.

Exhibit 7 .

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1164, Packet Page 1492 ....,
.-.0
.c
><
W

EXAMPLES OF

CLOSED SUPERMARKETS

OKLAHOMA CITY & METRO AREAS
Exhibit 8
0 C'
0 0)
(0
..:..

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1165, Packet Page 1493 ~ nOOl/l2 :,;,- .,.' .. J";'

CLOSED SUPERMARKETS
OKLAHOMA CITY & MElRO AREAS
"-' ...... "
i
Exhibit 8 ~

20. FORMER PAAnS - SEC EASTERN & 21. FORMER BUCHANAN'S - NEe 12'"' MOORE, OK EASTERN & .tJJ1 - MOORE. OK
Exhibit 8
00692
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1166, Packet Page 1494 o
o
en
(0
CN
m
>< ::r _.
c: _ .
....
to ,.-.
:(b
'¢;:I
<:>
.....
~
·w
Exhibit 9: Closed Walmart Facilities
.') '\
cr- '7
~
•
t.egend
• C101l~ ,"acllitles
MlcroO,Ics., 1t;I2003 SelIn1US
• '00 C_u. Plac .. 1K+
- U.S.lnw~.1:100T
o 2000 Countla
a 2 • 0 0
ZiK Sea"':'· .. 0.7" nil"
'.
.iii9i-~:
02104104
MIJ'9I!If --
",
., ,~
~,
• Piedmont
• r !
;"':-:'-.;:"'-
• Jon ••
- .; ,', ~.~!,
DSR MarketIng Systems, Inc.
~
...."."
'{ .
• Pin,k
Setnel Aera Ii
. .

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1167, Packet Page 1495 · ..

Appendix 1

ABOUT DSR MARKETING SYSTEMS
DSR Marketing Systems, Inc. is a market research and consuking firm which specializes in retail research, including store location analysis and consumer research.

Dr. David Rogers is the President of DSR Marketing Systems, Inc. He was formerly Head of Site Potential Statistics for J. Sainsbury PLC, the British supermarket chain.

He has given presentations on market research topics for a wide variety of U.S. and British retail trade organizations, and is a Tutor at the annual Retail location Analysis seminar at Oxford University's Business School (Templeton College).

Dr. Rogers is co-editor of Store Location and Store Assessment Research, a text-book published by John Wiley and Sons ltd., the international publishers, and is a regular columnist for a variety of retail trade magazines in Australia, the USA and UK, including Retail Merchandiser and Progressive Grocer in New York, the European Retail Digest and Retail Week in Britain, and Shopping Centre News in Australia.

Dr. Rogers has consulted with an extensive number of retail, restaurant, and shopping center clients in Australia, Canada, FranCe, Iceland, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.A.

His experience includes expert witness testimony at planriing and traffic impact inquiries and in cases concerning Retail Competition and Eminent Domain.

Dr. Rogers received his undergraduate degree from the University of Bristol (England), his M.S. from the University of Wisconsin (Madison), USA, and his doctorate from the University of Reading (England). All three degrees were in the field of Urban Studies. >: ; '000144 00694
-':,
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1168, Packet Page 1496 Letter 13
COMMENTER: Steven Herum, Attorney-at-Law, Herum Crabtree Suntag Attorneys DATE: August 20, 2019
The City of Seaside finds that the evidence provided by Herum Crabtree Suntag Attorneys and their clients the Committee for Sound Water and Land Development of Fort Ord (“Herum”), is not credible and does not constitute substantial evidence. (Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v.

County of San Bernardino (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 677, 692 [If there are “legitimate issues regarding the credibility” of a commenter’s opinions, then an agency can “deem them not substantial evidence.”]; Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 331.) As outlined below, Herum has provided inaccurate and misleading information. Based upon these misrepresentations, the City of Seaside finds that the materials provided by Herum are not credible and do not constitute substantial evidence. For example:
(1) Comment 13.7 alleges “the DEIR failed to discuss the feasibility of multiple mitigation measures that could be imposed to reduce this significant effect [GHG],” citing to a generic list of GHG mitigation measures from 2008. The commenter also alleges “the project has the individual characteristic of making the GHG situation substantially worse.” Ironically, the very first mitigation measure in that 2008 list states: “Encourage compact, mixed-use projects, forming urban villages designed to maximize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of public transit systems”, i.e., to implement projects precisely like the Proposed Project (Draft EIR Section 2.3 [“Provide shopping, employment, and housing opportunities for households of various sizes and income levels, in close proximity to one another and the CSUMB campus, and to reduce vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis.”]). (2) Comment 13.2 states “the [air quality] analysis…fails to quantify increase in ‘known adverse health effects’ produced by the Project’s ‘significant and unavoidable’ increases in air pollutants” (Comment 13.2). The Draft EIR did not disclose “significant and unavoidable” air quality impacts (Draft EIR Section 4.2).
(3) Comment 13.2 also incorrectly asserts that “the analysis deliberately omitted any quantification of the amount of CO, ROG, Nox, or particulate matter” (emphasis in original).

Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR includes quantification of air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project in Table 4.2-5 under Impact AQ-2 and in Table 4.2-6 under Impact AQ-3. These tables include estimated emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, contrary to the assertions in the comment.
(4) Comment 13.6 also incorrectly faults the GHG analysis because it purportedly “lacks a threshold of significance” and faults the EIR for not utilizing a “net no increase” significance threshold. However, as outlined in greater detail below, the City expressly utilized the GHG significance thresholds requested by the commenter, i.e., the Draft EIR “considers any increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions to be significant” (Draft EIR page 4.7-13). (5) Comment 13.7 also incorrectly faults the EIR for “not provid[ing] information about the amount of GHG produced by the project...” Contrary to the assertions, the Draft EIR quantifies GHG emissions generated by construction and operation of the Proposed Project, which are included in Table 4.7-2 and Table 4.7-3 of Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1169, Packet Page 1497 Response 13.1
The commenter describes the committee it represents and summarizes their interpretation of CEQA and its relationship to socio-economic impacts.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR or CEQA process. Please refer to Response 13.2 through Response 13.22 for responses to specific comments from the commenter, including Response 13.11 and Response 13.12 regarding urban decay and socioeconomic effects.

Response 13.2
The commenter states that adverse air quality impacts are correlated with increased incidents of health ailments, and the Draft EIR must quantify the increase in health effects causes by the increase in air pollutants attributable to the Project. The commenter states that the Draft EIR omitted quantifications of CO, ROG, NOX, and particulate matter. The commenter states that Draft EIR Table 4.2.1 is legally deficient and the Draft EIR omits important air quality health-related information.

As outlined below, the commenter misrepresents the contents of the Draft EIR and CEQA’s requirements. Furthermore, the state has explicitly identified mixed use and multi-modal projects, such as the Proposed Project, as a solution for addressing statewide greenhouse gas and air quality goals. As expressly discussed in Draft EIR Section 2.3:

This Proposed Project and the associated objectives are also designed to address statewide planning efforts. The legislature has adopted findings that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California… (3) Among the consequences of those actions are…. reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)). The Legislature also recently adopted findings that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(A) [AB 3194 (2018)]).

This comment incorrectly asserts that “the analysis deliberately omitted any quantification of the amount of CO, ROG, NOx, or particulate matter” and also incorrectly alleges that the Project results in “’significant and unavoidable’ increases in air pollutants” (emphasis in Original; Comment 13.2 at page 3). Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR includes quantification of air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project in Table 4.2-5 under Impact AQ-2 and in Table 4.2-6 under Impact AQ-3. These tables include estimated emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, contrary to the assertions in the comment. As discussed under Impacts AQ-1 through AQ-6, the Project would not result in any significant air quality impacts.

The commenter also asserts that “The DEIR did not Correlate the Project’s Adverse Air Quality Impacts to Resultant Adverse Heath Affects.” The Draft EIR disclosed the health consequences associated with each air pollutant, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.2.1(b). However, based upon the MBARD significance thresholds, which are based upon human health, the Project would not result in any significant air quality impacts (Draft EIR Section 4.2). CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a) explains that “reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1170, Packet Page 1498 severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project.” In this instance, the Project is a mixed-use development, immediately adjacent to the CSUMB Campus, which is designed to cater for pedestrians and bicyclists, and further the state’s GHG and air quality goals.

The Supreme Court has held that “basic CEQA principles dictate there must be a reasonable effort to put into a meaningful context the conclusion that the air quality impacts will be significant” (emphasis added; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 522). Here, however, the commenter’s basic premise is incorrect.25 The Draft EIR concludes that neither the construction nor operation of the Project will result in any significant air quality impacts (see Draft EIR at page ES-8– 9). Because the Project’s air quality impacts are less than significant, the Draft EIR does not need to provide more detailed information on health impacts.

Air districts, such as MBARD base their significance thresholds on the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The federal and state Clean Air Acts regulate emissions of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for the protection of public health. As expressly discussed on Draft EIR page 4.2-19, “Project emissions below the AAQS would not have significant health impacts because the AAQS are set to be protective of human health.” An air quality standard is defined as “the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harming public health” (CARB 2019a). In accordance with Section 109(b) of the federal Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established at the federal level are designed to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.

To derive these standards, the USEPA reviews data from integrated science assessments and risk/exposure assessments to determine the ambient pollutant concentrations at which human health impacts occur, then reduces these concentrations to establish a margin of safety (USEPA 2018). In addition, the State of California has established health-based AAQS for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards (CARB 2019b and 2019c).

MBARD’s thresholds for evaluating VOC, NOX, and CO emissions are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act de minimis thresholds.26 The de minimis thresholds are used in the USEPA’s general conformity process and are the emission levels at which an activity would not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, worsen an existing violation of the NAAQS, or delay attainment of the NAAQS (USEPA 2017). Therefore, these thresholds are designed to be protective of public health because they are consistent with the NAAQS.

MBARD’s thresholds for evaluating PM10 and SO2 emissions are consistent with the emission thresholds established by MBARD Rule 207 (New Source Review) for requiring use of best available control technology (MBARD 2011).27 The purpose of Rule 207 is to implement the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, the federal Clean Air Act requires emissions from new or modified stationary sources to be restricted in places where air quality currently exceeds one or more NAAQS. One of the purposes of 25 Notably, the comment states that the Draft EIR fails “to quantify increases in ‘known adverse health effects’ produced by the Project’s ’significant and unavoidable‘ increases in air pollutants” (Comment 13.2 at page 5). This statement is incorrect. As discussed in the Draft EIR, this Project will not result in any significant impacts to air quality. 26 The de minimis threshold for VOC and NOX emissions in severe non-attainment areas is 25 tons per year, which equates to approximately 137 pounds per day (i.e., the MBARD significance threshold for operational VOC and NOX emissions under CEQA). The de minimis threshold for CO emissions in maintenance areas is 100 tons per year, which equates to approximately 550 pounds per day (i.e., the MBARD significance threshold for operational CO emissions under CEQA). 27 Per Table 4.1.1 in Rule 207, the emission thresholds for best available control technology are 82 pounds per day for PM10 and 150 pounds per day for SO2 (i.e., the MBARD significance thresholds for construction-related PM10 emissions and operational PM10 and SO2 emissions under CEQA).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1171, Packet Page 1499 the PSD program is to protect public health and welfare (USEPA 2019). The California Clean Air Act requires each air district to implement a stationary source control program that achieves no net increase in emissions of criteria pollutants (or their precursors) for which the region is nonattainment (CARB 2019d). Therefore, these thresholds are designed to be protective of public health because they are consistent with the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Because project-level significance thresholds established by MBARD are set at the level at which a project would cause or have a cumulatively considerable contribution to an exceedance of a federal or state ambient air quality standard, these thresholds are protective of public health. Therefore, if a project’s air pollutant emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds, the project would not cause or contribute to the human health impacts described under Section 4.2.1(b), Air Pollutants of Primary Concern, of the Draft EIR.

Section 4.2.1(b) and Table 4.2.1 of the Draft EIR include a general description of the health impacts of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TAC) to provide background context for the air quality analysis. Because Project-related air pollutant emissions would be less than significant, the Project’s incremental contribution to adverse health impacts from air pollution would also be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, more detailed information on human health effects is not required.

Although quantification of health impacts is not required for the reasons described above, to help respond to this comment, a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was nevertheless performed for the Proposed Project. The construction HRA is provided as Appendix Q to this Final EIR. As discussed therein, an analysis using the USEPA’s AERMOD dispersion model and CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program risk analysis tool determined that the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) at existing residences would be exposed to an excess cancer risk of approximately

0.92 in 100,000, which would not exceed MBARD’s recommended cancer risk criteria of one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals (MBARD 2008). The MEIR at future residences constructed during Phase 1 of the Proposed Project would be exposed to an excess cancer risk of approximately

0.32 in 100,000, which also would not exceed MBARD’s recommended cancer risk criteria. Potential chronic (non-carcinogenic) health risks for the MEIR were also determined to be below applicable health risk criteria. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial TAC emissions that would adversely impact existing and future residents in the Plan Area vicinity.

The comment makes much of the holdings in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. However, in that case air pollution emission exceeded air quality thresholds and those emissions were significant and unavoidable, the court held that the EIR should have correlated the “identified adverse air quality impacts to resultant health effects.” Nothing in the Bakersfield case requires an EIR to quantify health impacts of air emissions when these emissions are determined to be less than significant, as based on air district health-protective thresholds of significance. Thus, the Project EIR does not “suffer the same affliction” as the Bakersfield EIRs.

The comment also cites a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that concludes that for each 10 microgram per cubic meter increase in “fine particulate air pollution,” there was an association with a “4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively” (Comment 13.2 at page 5). This comment is noted. However, the cited study does not state what threshold was used over which the increases were studied. As described about, the Draft EIR relied on thresholds of significance for particulate matter which were developed to protect human health. The Project will not result in any substantial air quality impacts based on these thresholds of significance.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1172, Packet Page 1500 Response 13.3
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Appendix F energy disclosure and mitigation standards. The commenter states that the Draft EIR unreasonably narrows the scope of analysis of energy impacts, which conflicts with Appendix F.

Page ES-20 of the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR provides an overview of the Project’s energy impacts and is not intended to provide a full, detailed analysis. Rather, the analysis of the Project’s energy impacts is provided in Section 4.5, Energy of the Draft EIR. The analysis in this section relies on the significance criteria established by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the Project’s energy impacts.

The Office of Planning and Research and California Natural Resources Agency recently added the two energy questions to Appendix G specifically to “better integrate the energy analysis” required by Appendix F “with the rest of CEQA” (California Natural Resources Agency 2018) Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains a sample environmental checklist form, which is widely utilized in CEQA review throughout the state. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City of Seaside to use the Appendix G checklist questions as thresholds of significance in the analysis of energy impacts.

Furthermore, the analysis under Impacts E-1 and E-2 also considers how the Project accomplishes the following approaches that Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines identifies as means of achieving the goal of energy conservation through the wise and efficient use of energy:
 Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
 Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and  Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides a “list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures…designed to assist in the preparation of an EIR…Where items listed below are applicable or relevant to the project, they should be considered in the EIR” (text is bolded for emphasis). Section 4.5 includes the following elements recommended by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines:
 A description of the Project’s energy-consuming equipment and processes during construction and operation is included under Impact E-1.
 The Project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiency by amount and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal are discussed under Impact E-1 and in Tables 4.5-4 and 4.5-5.  The Project’s energy conservation equipment and design features are described under Impact E1.  Energy supplies that would serve the Project are identified in Section 4.5.1 and under Impact E-1.
 Total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the Project and the additional energy consumed by these trips are included under Impact E-1 and in Table 4.5-5.  Existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the region and locality are detailed in Section 4.5.1.
 The effects of the Project on local and regional electricity supplies and on requirements for additional electricity generation capacity are discussed under Impact E-1.  The degree to which the Project complies with existing energy standards is discussed under Impacts E-1 and E-2.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1173, Packet Page 1501  The effects of the Project on energy resources are analyzed under Impacts E-1 and E-2.  The Project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives are discussed under Impact E-1.

Impact E-1 quantifies the amount of electricity and natural gas the Project would consume. The physical environmental impacts associated with the use of energy including the generation of electricity and burning of fuels are accounted for in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.5, power plants that provide electricity for Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and PG&E are required to undergo individual environmental review processes, which may be through the California Energy Commission’s certified regulatory program under CEQA,28 or through the California Public Utilities Commission’s CEQA processes (California Energy Commission 2019).

To further bolster the analysis in Section 4.5, the following text under Impact E-1 (page 4.5-17) has been revised to include additional information on the Project’s effects on local and regional natural gas supplies, as follows:

Electricity would be supplied by on-site solar generation, MBCP (the default electricity provider in the Plan Area), or PG&E. Natural gas would be supplied by PG&E. As discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less, which would supply much of the on-site electricity demand. Furthermore, on-site electricity demand would be substantially less than historic usage within the former Fort Ord, as described in detail in Section 3, Environmental Setting. Given historic electricity usage, CEC’s and CPUC’s long range planning efforts, and on-site solar generation, there would be adequate capacity to meet demand for electricity. Furthermore, California natural gas demand, including volumes not served by utility systems, is expected to decrease at a rate of 0.5 percent per year from 2018 to 2035; therefore, the incremental increase in natural gas consumption from the Proposed Project would not indirectly result in the need to secure additional natural gas supplies or construct new or expanded natural gas processing plants (CGEU 2018).

The changes reflected above would not result in alterations to the degree of impact or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and therefore do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the changes serve to clarify and amplify the content of the EIR.

The Draft EIR provides disclosure of the Proposed Project’s energy impacts and does not narrow the scope of energy impacts in a way that conflicts or is inconsistent with Appendix F. Based on the analysis in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project would not result in significant energy impacts; therefore, no mitigation is included. No revisions are warranted.

Response 13.4
The commenter states that the Draft EIR assumes residents are likely already located within the AMBAG jurisdiction, and alleges this conflicts with the stated baseline. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR analysis omits the fact that someone will move into the vacated older and less efficient homes that do not meet energy efficiency requirements. The commenter states that evidence is not presented supporting that college students would bike or walk to campus, and the 28 Overview of the CEC’s certified regulatory program under CEQA: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/public_advisor/joint_process.html ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1174, Packet Page 1502 Project Description does not restrict occupancy of residential units to only students attending the state college.

The Draft EIR includes substantial evidence supporting its assumptions that (1) residents are likely already located in the AMBAG jurisdiction, (2) residents will move from older and less efficient homes, and (3) CSUMB students who walk or bike to class would make up a substantial portion of the residents due to the Project’s proximity to CSUMB. Comment 13.4 also appears inconsistent with Comment 13.12, which implies that the EIR should consider where Project residents would live if the Project were not constructed, or constructed at a reduced density. Furthermore, “A public agency can make reasonable assumptions based on substantial evidence about future conditions without guaranteeing that those assumptions will remain true” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 412).

The three assumptions that the comment takes issue with are also supported by substantial evidence. Regarding the assumption that future residents likely reside within the AMBAG jurisdiction, the Draft EIR cites to the City of Seaside’s 2010 Housing Element, and the AMBAG 2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Seaside’s 2010 Housing Element states that Seaside’s rental vacancy rate of 1.5 percent is an indicator of “pent up demand for housing, leading to higher homeownership and rental prices” (at H-5). It goes on to say that “[t]he low vacancy rate among these rental units indicates that households who would otherwise seek multi-family units are occupying more expensive single-family rental units. To avoid overpayment, these households may take on additional roommates which could account for many of the City’s 1,887 households living in overcrowded conditions, representing 17.1 percent of the City’s entire housing stock in 2000” (H-6).

It concludes, “[o]vercrowding is considered a housing problem in Seaside” (Ibid). These concerns are throughout the region (see AMBAG 2014-2023 RHNA at page 2 of the AMBAG RHNA Methodology Factors Survey dated September 20, 2013).

There is substantial evidence that there is a lack of existing housing and pent up demand in the AMBAG region. Indeed, it is unreasonable to assume that existing residents are not relocating from another location. In fact, the legislature specifically requires consideration of the impacts associated with the denial of housing projects. More specifically, Gov. Code § 65589.5(b) explains that “It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects… without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” As discussed in Section 65589.5(a) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.”
The analysis of the “displaced growth” associated with the Project is proper. Environmental analysis can consider displaced growth or displaced trips (see Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708). As stated in Center for Biological Diversity v.

Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 257, “the future residents and occupants of development enabled by Project approval would exist and live somewhere else if this Project is not approved. Whether ‘here or there,’ GHG emissions associated with such population growth will occur.” See also Friends of the Kings River v. Counts of Fresno (Dec. 8, 2014, F068818).29 That case involved a new aggregate mine and related processing plant in the Sierra Nevada foothills. The Court of Appeal upheld the Air Quality and GHG analyses, which were based upon reducing absolute 29 https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/F068818.PDF ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1175, Packet Page 1503 countywide VMT (i.e., displacing existing long-distance truck trips with shorter duration truck trips).

More specifically, the Opinion noted:

Population growth correlates to growth in demand for aggregate and related construction materials…shortages in the Fresno area have resulted in rock being imported from Coalinga, a 60 mile haul, quoting a 2006 Department of Conservation report… “Delivery trucks are an aspect of the Proposed Project that may result in a regional reduction of GHG emissions. By placing a source of aggregate, ready-mix concrete, and asphalt in a location where supply does not currently meet demand the Project will result in a reduction in VMT [vehicle miles traveled] for customers. It is expected that many of the Proposed Project’s customers will be located within a 30 to 60-mile roundtrip distance from the Proposed Project.

In the absence of the Proposed Project, a portion of these customers would otherwise have to travel to Coalinga to obtain these materials, at a roundtrip distance of approximately 120 miles.

This reduction in distance traveled for customer vehicles would result in a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions…” (Emphasis added; Slip Opinion at pp. 54-57.) In the Friends of the Kings River case, to support the EIR’s use of displaced truck trip assumptions, the lead agency relied upon a 2006 Department of Conservation report which explained that (1) Aggregate shortages in the Fresno area have resulted in rock being imported into the area from Coalinga, a 60-mile haul, and (2) a map prepared by DOC which shows that Fifty-Year Aggregate Demand Compared to Permitted Aggregate Resources” shows that permitted sources of aggregate represent a small fraction of the 50-year demand for aggregate in the Fresno area, (3) and a Planning Commission report which showed that the County had only permitted 11 percent of the region’s 50-year aggregate demand, with less than 10 years of permitted supply remaining. (Slip Opinion at pp. 56-57.)
Notably, while the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis discusses displaced growth, its VMT calculation “is conservative because it does not fully account for displaced growth/redistributed population” (Draft EIR at page 4.7-12). The Draft EIR also provided detail quantitative analysis which did not include the benefits of displaced growth (see Draft EIR page 4.7-13).

This is also consistent with SCAQMD’s 1993 CEQA Handbook, which states “As part of the impact analysis…the existing level of background emissions and local air quality need also be taken into account” (SCAQMD 1993 CEQA Handbook, Section 7.2). In fact, CARB utilizes the same methodology in their own CEQA documents. For example, the Draft EIR Operational Air Quality analysis for CARB’s Consolidation Project (Testing Facility) stated:

To evaluate the potential environmental impacts of employee commuting changes associated with moving the testing functions from Los Angeles and El Monte to Riverside…Using the traffic analysis and current commutes for employees, the net mobile vehicle mileage (project less existing conditions) at opening day was estimated to be 4,003,440 miles per year. (CARB Consolidation Project FEIR32 pages 5.3-33 through 5.3- 36.) Indeed, the California Legislature’s finding in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (also known as “SB 330”) note that the housing crisis has “[f]orced public employees, health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which will exacerbate future disaster response challenges in high-cost, high-congestion areas and increase risk to life.” (SB 330 Finding 6(D).) Additionally, the housing crisis was found to harm the environment by “[i]ncreasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to affordable homes far from growing job centers.” (SB 330 Finding 12(B).) ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1176, Packet Page 1504 The commenter also incorrectly asserts that “The so-called analysis omits the fact that someone will in turn move into these ‘older and less efficient’ homes that do not meet building code.” The commenter misrepresents the statements from the EIR, which explain:

Approximately 77 percent of the City of Seaside’s housing stock was built prior to 1980 and therefore does not incorporate modern Building Code efficiency requirements (City of Seaside 2010). Consequently, individuals moving from older residences to the Project would consume less energy in the forms of electricity and natural gas because the Project would be more efficient than the surrounding housing stock from which people are anticipated to move. (Draft EIR at page 4.5-19).

The Draft EIR does not state that the Project would eliminate the older less efficient homes, rather it states that “individuals…would consume less energy…” This is an accurate statement. While the existing homes will exist, less efficient fixtures and appliances will be used less often with fewer individuals per home (e.g., reduced usage of appliances, such as fewer loads of laundry). As explained on page 4.17-17 of the Draft EIR: “moving from older residences to the Proposed Project would use fewer resources, such as water, electricity, and natural gas because the Proposed Project would be more efficient than the surrounding housing stock from which people are anticipated to move. These efficiency benefits are not captured in the quantitative analysis.” The Draft EIR reasonably assumed that the Project would attract students as CSUMB as residents, and that those students would walk or ride their bikes to school rather than drive. The Draft EIR states that “CSUMB’s adopted 2007 Master Plan calls for increased enrollment of 8,500 students but plans to house only 60 percent of students on campus,” and that “The 2007 Master Plan also notes that the primary means of commuting to and from campus is driving, but that for students living ‘very near campus,’ the primary means are walking and biking.” Given the proximity of the Project to the campus, it is reasonable to assume that student residents would walk or bike to school daily, rather than drive.

Finally, the commenter also alleges an inconsistency between the EIR's statements that residents are likely already located within the AMBAG region (on Draft EIR page 4.5-18), while acknowledging in the Project Description buildout year discussion that "[t]he actual rate and amount of development (up to the maximums) could differ; buildout is dependent on market conditions, birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, availability of resources, and regulatory processes from Federal, State and local regulations" (Draft EIR page 2-11). There is nothing inconsistent about these two statements, residents are anticipated to come from within the AMBAG region, and a number of broad factors can control the timing of that buildout, such as the 2008 recession. The intent of the language was to acknowledge changes in market conditions, which have a variety of underlying factors. Nevertheless, the text of page 2-11 has been revised to eliminate reference to “immigration” (see Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR). Furthermore, even if individuals came from more distant locations, this would not affect the analysis. California has some of the lowest per capita energy consumption in the U.S., due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs (CEC 2016, USEIA 2018).

Response 13.5
The commenter states that compliance with Title 24 standards does not exempt an EIR from conducting analysis. The commenter states that the Project Description should include a discussion of energy-consuming equipment, energy requirements by fuel type, energy conservation equipment, energy costs, and energy consumption per vehicle trip, per Appendix F of the CEQA ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1177, Packet Page 1505 Guidelines. The commenter states that the Draft EIR environmental setting does not include existing energy supply and use patterns or baseline information, and does not explain omissions. The commenter states that the Draft EIR uses a rejected energy analysis and omits relevant data.

The Draft EIR did not use compliance with Title 24 standards to exempt it from conducting a full energy analysis. Please refer to Response 13.3 for a discussion of the Draft EIR’s full energy analysis and consistency with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed therein, the analysis contained in Section 4.5, Energy, of the Draft EIR is adequate and compliant with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

Furthermore, the commenter significantly misrepresents the Energy analysis methodology, by citing a single line out of a 27-page analysis, which does not accurately represent the full methodology utilized. More specifically, the commenter cites page 4.5-26, which analyzes cumulative impacts, not the project-level impacts, nor does the comment accurately reflect the full methodology of that analysis, which can be analyzed at a lesser level of detail (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)). The Draft EIR Energy analysis met all of the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.

The commenter also misrepresents the law in citing to California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173. That case did not fault that EIR for discussing the California Building Code, rather it faulted that EIR for not discussing other non-building energy sources. More specifically, that Court held that:

Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. (Id. at 211.) The Draft EIR and the cumulative analysis did not limit the Energy analyses to only consistency with Title 24, which was the issue in California Clean Energy Committee.

Response 13.6
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not provide an adequate GHG threshold of significance and that the Draft EIR therefore omits facts, information, and data that is necessary to determine GHG impact significance. The commenter states that CARB recommended GHG thresholds be either zero or sufficiently stringent to meet 2020 and 2050 emissions reduction targets.

The thresholds utilized in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, are those suggested by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR includes two significance thresholds: (1) generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and (2) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (Draft EIR at page 4.7-13). In implementing the first threshold, the Draft EIR “considers any increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions to be significant.” (Draft EIR Section 4.7.3).

The Draft EIR compares the Project’s emissions to (1) the existing Plan Area, (2) regional baseline conditions and (3) to 1991 baseline conditions, which are the physical conditions that were present at the time that the federal decision for the closure or realignment of the former Fort Ord base ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1178, Packet Page 1506 became final. Therefore, as the commenter recommends, the Draft EIR already utilizes a threshold of a net zero increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions.

As discussed under “Comparison of the Proposed Project to the Existing Plan Area Emissions Baseline” under Impact GHG-1, for the purposes of the analysis, existing GHG emissions from the Plan Area are functionally 0 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from the Plan Area of approximately 14,873 MT of CO2e per year, the Draft EIR concludes that impacts under this baseline analysis would be cumulatively considerable. Accordingly, the Draft EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) through GHG-1(d) to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to 0 MT of CO2e per year. As a result, with implementation of mitigation, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.

Since publication of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant has prepared a draft GGRP, which identifies a suite of actions that would achieve compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d) as required by the Draft EIR. The GGRP is included as Appendix P to this Final EIR. As shown therein, implementation of the GGRP would reduce emissions from the Proposed Project to 0 MT of CO2e per year through several measures, including requiring single-family and multi-family residential units and commercial parking areas to provide electric vehicle charging stations, renewable diesel in the construction fleet, electric fireplaces in residences, 100 percent carbon-free electricity in nonresidential building, solar systems in residential and non-residential buildings, electric-powered landscape equipment, tree planting, and purchasing carbon credits.

The GHG analysis also provides two additional baseline comparisons to the Existing Regional Emissions baseline and the 1991 Former Fort Ord Operations baseline. In support of this analysis, a quantitative comparison of emissions generated by the former Fort Ord base and emissions generated by existing, entitled, and planned Fort Ord base reuse development and the Proposed Project has been added to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions with a supplementary technical memorandum included as Appendix R to this Final EIR. The following text under Impact GHG-1 in Section 4.7 (page 4.7-18 to 4.7-19) has been revised to include additional information on this comparison, as follows:

The 1992 Air Quality Baseline Study prepared for the former Fort Ord quantified criteria and toxic air pollutant emissions from base operations but did not quantify GHG emissions (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992). Therefore, in the absence of quantitative data, this analysis qualitatively discusses the magnitude of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions in comparison to the magnitude of GHG emissions generated by the former Ford Ord base.

Therefore, operational GHG emissions generated by the former Fort Ord base in 1991 were quantified and compared to those emissions generated by existing, entitled, and planned Fort Ord base reuse development and the Proposed Project. The full supplementary analysis of GHG emissions under the former Fort Ord 1991 baseline, which is incorporated into the following discussion, is provided as Appendix R.

The former Fort Ord accommodated single-family housing, barracks, commercial retail, a hospital, an elementary school, general light industry and stationary combustion sources, a general aviation airport, recreational uses, and a sports/fitness complex (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992). The former Fort Ord’s resident population was 31,270 persons in 1991, which was accommodated in 23,716 housing units. The former Fort Ord base generated approximately 401,028 MT of CO2e per year (Appendix R).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1179, Packet Page 1507 As discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, since 1991, there has been a total of 1,282 dwelling units, 1,766 existing/replacement dwelling units, and 988,200 square feet of nonresidential space built on the former Fort Ord. In addition, CSUMB has removed 274 military buildings from its campus, reused 66 military buildings, constructed 7 new buildings, constructed recreational facilities, and improved the infrastructure on the campus. Additional residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development is entitled and planned for the former Ford Ord through 2030. New development, including the Proposed Project, is substantially more efficient than prior base development constructed from the 1950s to the 1970s due to increasingly stringent building codes and vehicle efficiency standards that have increased energy, water, and fuel use efficiency since that time, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Existing, entitled, planned, and reasonably foreseeable future base reuse development through 2030 would generate approximately 292,687 MT of CO2e per year.

Therefore, base reuse development plus the Proposed Project would generate approximately 307,560 MT of CO2e per year, which would be approximately 93,468 MT of CO2e per year less than former Fort Ord 1991 baseline conditions (Appendix R). As a result, given that post-1991 development in conjunction with the Proposed Project is less intensive in terms of density and types of uses and more efficient than the former Fort Ord development, it is unlikely that the magnitude of Proposed Project-related GHG emissions combined with GHG emissions generated by all post-1991 development exceeds the magnitude of GHG emissions generated by former Fort Ord operations. As such, it is likely that the Proposed Project in combination with other post-1991 development on the former Fort Ord base generate fewer overall GHG emissions than under the 1991 baseline conditions. Therefore, based upon the 1991 former Fort Ord baseline analysis, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The changes reflected above would not result in alterations to the degree of impact or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and therefore do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the changes serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR.

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR does provide an adequate GHG threshold of significance and complies with the CARB-recommended GHG threshold of net zero. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted in response to this comment.

Response 13.7
The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s discussion of climate change does not provide information about the amount of GHG produced and whether this meets 2020 and 2050 goals, and the Draft EIR omits information and data and reaches the wrong significance conclusion. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR did not discuss the feasibility of mitigation measures that could reduce significant GHG effects, including OPR’s 33 measures to reduce GHGs and meet 2020 and 2050 goals.

Contrary to the assertions in the comment, the Draft EIR quantifies GHG emissions generated by construction and operation of the Proposed Project, which are summarized in Table 4.7-2 and Table

4.7-3 of Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As discussed therein, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from the Plan Area of approximately 14,873 MT of CO2e per year. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) through GHG-1(d), the Proposed Project would mitigate GHG emissions to 0 MT of CO2e per year. The 2017 Scoping Plan published by CARB, which addresses the State’s 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1180, Packet Page 1508 states that “achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development” (CARB 2017). With incorporation of mitigation, the Proposed Project would achieve this objective and would therefore be consistent with the State’s efforts to achieve its 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction goals.30 As discussed under Impact GHG-1 in Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions, and implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) through GHG-1(d) would be required to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Please refer to Response 10.3 for a discussion of the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified for the Project.

Since publication of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant has prepared the GGRP, which identifies a suite of actions that would achieve compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d) as required by the Draft EIR. The GGRP is included as Appendix P to this Final EIR. The commenter also faults the EIR for not addressing an 11-year-old generic list of GHG mitigation measures, in a report which was not attached to their comment letter (i.e., OPR’s 2008 Report CEQA and Climate Change:

Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review (June 19, 2008)). Contrary to this assertion, the City does not have an obligation to address the feasibility of a generic list of such measures, particularly when (1) many of these concepts have already been incorporated into the Project, and (2) the Project’s impacts have been mitigated to less than significant. (See Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1055 ([“Considering the large number of possible mitigation measures set forth in the letter [50 suggestions], as well as the letter's indication that not all measures would be appropriate for every project, it is unreasonable to impose on the city an obligation to explore each and every one.”)
The technical advisory encourages agencies to develop GHG emission reduction mitigation measures and describes Attachment 3 as “a preliminary menu that lead agencies may wish to consider,” but notes that “in some cases GHG emission reduction measures will not be feasible or may not be effective at a project level.” Many of the measures listed the 2008 Report are included in the Specific Plan, required under existing regulations promulgated over the last decade, or in the GGRP, including but not limited to the following:
 “Implement land use strategies to encourage jobs/housing proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and encourage high density development along transit corridors. Encourage compact, mixed-use projects, forming urban villages designed to maximize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of public transit systems”. The commenter describes the inherent nature of the Project, which is designed “To develop a variety of building types and uses, including entertainment, retail, housing, visitor lodging, and employment space with sufficient resident population in proximity to proposed commercial uses to support a viable Mixed Use Urban Village” (Draft EIR Section 2.3). The Project is also designed “To create a vibrant multi-model transportation network, including improvements which encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity.”
 “Encourage infill, redevelopment, and higher density development, whether in incorporated or unincorporated settings.” The Project is a high-density mixed-use development on infill land (i.e., former Fort Ord.) (Draft EIR page 4-5).
30 This response does not address consistency with the State’s 2020 GHG emission reduction target because the Project would not commence construction until 2021, and the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target in 2016 as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2018).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1181, Packet Page 1509  “Encourage new developments to integrate housing, civic and retail amenities (jobs, schools, parks, shopping opportunities) to help reduce VMT resulting from discretionary automobile trips.” The Project is already designed to “Provide shopping, employment, and housing opportunities for households of various sizes and income levels, in close proximity to one another and the CSUMB campus, and to reduce vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis” (Draft EIR Section 2.3).
 “Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings and reduce energy requirements for heating/cooling.” The Project already incorporates new trees in its thoroughfare regulations (Specific Plan Section 3.3), its parking standards (Specific Plan Section 4.7.14), and its landscape regulations (which include coast live oak), and requires replacement of trees (Specific Plan Section 3.5). Furthermore, additional off-site tree replacement has been provided, as outlined in Final EIR Appendix O).
 Preserve or replace onsite trees (that are removed due to development) as a means of providing carbon storage. At full buildout, the Project would result in significantly more trees than currently exist in the Plan Area, as outlined in Final EIR Appendix O).  “Where feasible, include in new buildings facilities to support the use of low/zero carbon fueled vehicles, such as the charging of electric vehicles from green electricity sources.” The Project already incorporates EV charging stations into the Specific Plan, as outlined in Specific Plan, Section 4.6, Building Types. The GGRP also provides more specific detail on proposed electric vehicle charging stations. The Project also already incorporates the use of solar and carbon free electricity, as explained in Draft EIR Section 4.7.
 Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, including installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options. Under Title 24 and the GGRP, the Project would incorporate on-site energy production through the use of solar panels.

As outlined above, the City has mitigated impacts to less than significant and implemented many of the generic suggestions from the commenter. See also Response 10.3 for additional responses to a generic list of GHG mitigation measures.

Response 13.8
The commenter states that the construction timeline is speculative and notes that there is no enforceable obligation to build out phase one before phase two. The commenter states the Draft EIR uses the mixed-use development feature of the Project to mitigate potentially significant impacts. The commenter states if the Project is built out omitting mixed uses, impacts would be greater and are not considered in the Draft EIR. The commenter states that there is no reason to believe these assumptions, and mitigation should be provided. The commenter recommends three mitigation measures to enforce the proposed buildout pattern.

Refer to Response 1.29 regarding the 13-year timeframe for buildout of the Project. This comment, in essence, requests that a new alternative be studied by the Draft EIR in which only one of the two phases are actually implemented. As an initial matter, one of the Project’s objectives is to “develop a variety of building types and uses, including entertainment, retail, housing, visitor lodging, and employment space with sufficient resident population in proximity to proposed commercial uses to support a viable Mixed Use Urban Village” (Draft EIR at page 2-10, Objective No. 1). An alternative that develops only housing or only commercial and retail uses would not meet one of the primary objectives of the Project, and is therefore not a proper alternative.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1182, Packet Page 1510 The comment faults the Draft EIR for assuming that the Project will be built as-proposed. Courts have rejected such criticisms. In Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, Petitioners “criticized the EIR for making assumptions about the proposed project but failing to evaluate the environmental consequences if any of the assumptions proved erroneous.” (Id. at 1029.) The Court rejected this argument noting that “[a]ppellants are asking more of the EIR than is legally required. The ‘assumptions’ referred to are actually integral portions of the proposed project... The proposed project, which includes the transportation corridor, a preserved Greenbelt and 25 percent affordable housing, was evaluated in the EIR, CEQA requires nothing more.” (Id. at 1030.) The court went on to not that the “assumptions” noted by Petitioners “are actually integral portions of the proposed project. If they fail to become reality... we are dealing with a different project.” (Id. at page 1030.) An EIR need only evaluate the Project as proposed. (Ibid.)
Additionally, the Draft EIR analyzes a low-density alternative (Alternative 2) with fewer units and less square footage of commercial and retail space (Draft EIR Section 6.4). The commenter’s proposed alternative is merely another permutation of a low-density alternative. An EIR need not consider every possible permutation of an alternative, but only a “reasonable range” of alternatives.

The effect of a less-than-full buildout is analyzed in the low-density alternative. An EIR is not required to assume a project will fail, and project assumptions are made at the discretion of the Lead Agency. An EIR can make reasonable assumptions based on substantial evidence about future conditions without guaranteeing that those assumptions will remain true (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento [“City of Sacramento”] [2006] 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1036). The court in City of Sacramento held that “Plaintiff’s premise confuses the agencies assumptions about the baseline conditions with necessary mitigation measures.” (Id. at 1034-1035.) In rejecting Petitioner’s argument that an EIR must “somehow enforce the assumptions” made therein, the Court noted that “[a] public agency can make reasonable assumptions based on substantial evidence about future conditions without guaranteeing that those assumptions will remain true....

Plaintiffs may be unhappy with the assumptions, but those assumptions are not mitigation measures…” (Id. at 1036; Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)). Therefore, it is not necessary to consider a scenario where the Project is not built out as proposed.

Please refer to Impact LU-2 in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR regarding impacts resulting from conflicts with land use plans and policies. This impact was determined to be less than significant with no mitigation required. The commenter’s proposed mitigation measures would not reduce any identified potentially significant impacts, and are not required to be included in the EIR.

Response 13.9
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient data regarding fire response times with the Project. The commenter states the emergency management system and fire response time cannot be determined because the location of the new fire station is unknown and no mitigation measures are required.

As an initial matter, response times are not an environmental impact. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 842, 843 [“The need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate” and concluding that given the small size of the anticipated new fire station “…that additional or expanded fire facilities will not have a significant environmental impact.”]; Emphasis in original.)
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1183, Packet Page 1511 Under CEQA and the Draft EIR significance criteria, a project will have a significant impact on the environment if it will result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or altered fire facilities. The Draft EIR concludes that the Proposed Project will not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or altered fire facilities.

As stated in the Draft EIR, the Seaside Fire Department (SPD) operates at a service ratio of 0.7 firefighters per 1,000 residents, but the 2004 General Plan strives for 1 firefighter per 1.000 residents. CEQA does not require an EIR to recommend mitigation measures that would improve the existing condition of public service facilities.

Project-related impacts are discussed in Section 4.13.3(b) of the Draft EIR, which include increased demand for fire services, whether new police facilities would be needed, and new personnel that would be required to maintain service to the City and provide adequate service to the Plan Area.

The Draft EIR states:
…with an estimated 4,900 residents at buildout, the Proposed Project would require an additional 4.9 firefighters per the ratio. As the SFD currently does not meet their staffing goals of 1 firefighter per 1,000 residents, existing fire protection facilities are not adequate to meet the needs of existing residents of Seaside. The Proposed Project would exacerbate this deficiency. In order to provide the additional staffing required to meet the standards, for both the current population of Seaside as well as additional future population for buildout of the Specific Plan, expansion of either the existing g SFD fire station or the POM Fire Department station or construction of a new fire station could be required. With the expansion of fire department facilities and employees to serve the Plan Area and existing needs of the City, SFD response times would be maintained.

The Draft EIR discusses the potential for removal and replacement of the POM fire station, stating:

While no specific site or development plan has been selected for this fire station, for the purposes of this environmental analysis it has been assumed that a new 15,000 square foot fire station would be constructed and operational before the closure of the existing fire station and located on an approximately two-acre site in proximity to the Plan Area.

The Draft EIR concludes that the Project would generate additional demand; however, the construction of any new or altered facilities necessary to accommodate additional firefighters needed to serve the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant environmental impacts not already disclosed in the other resource chapters of the EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Finally, the commenter asserts that “[n]o enforceable mitigation measure accompanies the naked assumption that a new fire station will be operational before the old fire station is demolished or the assumption that a new fire station will be sited at a location within the development to maintain the response time standard.“ However, as previously stated, an EIR can make reasonable assumptions based on substantial evidence about future conditions without guaranteeing that those assumptions will remain true (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento [2006] 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1036). Please refer to Response 1.5 regarding timing for construction of the new fire station. The new fire station would be constructed and operational before the closure of the existing fire station. While not considered a mitigation measure, additional text has been added to the Specific Plan to ensure the new fire station is operational before development proceeds within the Plan Area where the existing fire station is located. See Final EIR, Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1184, Packet Page 1512 Response 13.10
The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s analysis of Alternative 2 is improper because it assumes that the 1,220 residents under that alternative would have lived elsewhere in the AMBAG region, but does not state that others will occupy their vacated former homes within the AMBAG region.

Please see Response to Comment 13.4 which is substantively the same as comment No. 13.10. The California Supreme Court has approved similar assumptions and methodologies, noting that “the future residents and occupants of development enabled by Project approval would exist and live somewhere else if this Project is not approved. Whether ‘here or there,’ GHG emissions associated with such population growth will occur.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 257.)
As also explained in Response 13.4, the EIR does not assume that the existing residential structures would be vacated. Draft EIR explained that “individuals moving from older residences to the Proposed Project would use fewer resources, such as water, electricity, and natural gas because the Proposed Project would be more efficient than the surrounding housing stock from which people are anticipated to move. These efficiency benefits are not captured in the quantitative analysis.” (Draft EIR at page 4.7-17.)
Indeed, it is unreasonable to assume that existing residents are not relocating from another location. In fact, the legislature specifically requires consideration of the impacts associated with the denial of housing projects. More specifically, Gov. Code 65589.5(b) explains that “It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects… without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” As discussed in Section 65589.5(a): “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” Indeed the California legislature adopted additional findings to this section in Senate Bill 330 which note that “The housing crisis harms families across California and has resulted in all of the following:…Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to affordable homes far from growing job centers.”
Response 13.11
The commenter alleges “the DEIR general [sic] assesses the potential effects of general retail, it did not consider the possibility of big-box retail.” The commenter also argues that because total residential development on the former Fort Ord property is capped, and the Proposed Project will use a substantial portion of the total allowable residential development, approval of the Project will result in the continuing urban decay of existing military structures which will not be developed. The commenter does not define “big-box retail” or explain how it relates to the Project. H&S Code § 33426.7 defines “Big box retailer” as a store of greater than 75,000 square feet of gross buildable area that will generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law.” The Project’s Building Type regulations do not allow individual uses of greater than 75,000 square feet, and the maximum anchor floor footprint for “Large Format” retail is 60,000 square feet. (Draft EIR Appendix B, Sections 4.5.1.9, 4.6.2.J(C), 4.6.2.K(C) [Building Type Standards]). This portion of the Specific Plan has since been updated to limit the largest single retail store in the project to 40,000 square feet. (See Final EIR Section 4, revisions to Sections 4.5.1.9, 4.6.2.J(C)(2), 4.6.2.K(C)(2).) Furthermore, the commenter ignores the Draft EIR’s discussion of urban decay, which was included in Draft EIR Section 5.4.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1185, Packet Page 1513 Nevertheless, to address the commenter’s concerns, additional urban decay analysis was conducted by ALH Urban & Regional Economics in November 2019. This study found that “there would... be no Campus Town-induced risk of existing retail business closures,” and concluded that the Project would not result in urban decay (ALH ECON 2019: page 30). The study found that in the Seaside market area, “the commercial properties... are moderately to well-maintained,” and that the retail vacancy rate as a whole is within typical retail industry standards of 5% to 10%” (ALH ECON 2019:
page 5–6). The Proposed Project would generate a significant portion of the demand of the support for its own commercial spaces, and although some sales within the Plan Area may be diverted from existing market area retailers, there will be new sources of retail demand generated in the market area to offset these potential diverted sales (ALH ECON 2019: page 6).

The Study then noted that even in the unlikely event that Campus Town result in any diversion of sales from existing retailers, “retailers would not likely be at risk of losing retail sales sufficient to result in store closure leading to increased commercial vacancy... and thus there would likely be no risk for their properties to erode into conditions leading to urban decay” (ALH ECON 2019: page 6).

In addition, the Proposed Project would not include any “big-box” development of the type discussed in the comment. The Specific Plan provides that only specific land uses are allowable (Specific Plan at pages 114–121). Furthermore, the City has proposed modifications to the Specific Plan to limit the maximum tenant size 40,000 square feet (see Section 4, Appendix B, Section

4.5.1.9). This size limitation is a reflection of the change in market demand for “discount retailers” and “discount/specialty grocers” as anchor tenants (ALH ECON 2019: page 5). The Urban Decay Study notes that this size adjustment “does not have an impact on the urban decay conclusions of this report as even without the modification the likelihood that Campus Town will attract and secure an anchor retail tenant in the range of 60,000 square feet is extremely low” (ALH ECON 2019:
page 5).

Additionally, even if a 60,000-square foot tenant were secured, “it would not be anticipated to result in urban decay” (ALH ECON 2019: page 5). Even if a hypothetical 60,000-square foot anchor tenant were selling goods competitive with existing market areas in Seaside, “the existing retailers would be among the market area’s stronger performing retailers generally located in well maintained, high occupancy shopping centers,” and smaller retailers “would not likely be at risk of losing retail sales sufficient to result in store closure leading to increased commercial vacancy... and thus there would likely be no risk for their properties to erode into conditions leading to urban decay.” (Ibid.) The total allowable developed retail square footage is 150,000, inclusive of retail, dining, and entertainment (Draft EIR at page 2-11).

For comparison, the “big-box” Wal-Mart Supercenter at issue in the case cited to by the commenter was 220,000 square feet in size, far larger than the total developable retail square footage, and more than five times the size of the largest theoretical retail store allowed within the Project. (See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1194.) No such “big-box” development would occur within the Proposed Project (Draft EIR Appendix B, Section

4.6.2, Building Type Standards), and the Draft EIR need not address such impacts.

As to the commenter’s suggestion that the Draft EIR failed to consider the urban decay impacts of developing the Proposed Project rather than some other portion of the Fort Ord property, the continuing “decay” of Army buildings outside of the Plan Area is not an impact of the Project. As noted by the commenter, these buildings are already “old and dilapidated” and “in the process of decay.” The state of these buildings is an existing environmental condition that would not be caused by the Proposed Project. "An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR" (CEQA Guidelines§ 15130(a)(l)). Courts have held that the “purpose of ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1186, Packet Page 1514 an EIR is to identify and discuss the impact of the proposed project on the existing environment,” but not to solve existing, region-wide problems, which would be “a feat that [is] far beyond its scope” (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1094). Indeed, the benefits of a mixed-use development requires a particular “critical mass” of density in order to be realized. Pedestrian-active commercial areas generally require higher Floor Area Ratios (FAR) than auto oriented centers. Similar concepts have been engrained by the state’s mixed use incentives, such as SB 743, which requires projects to have a minimum FAR to be eligible for certain partial CEQA exemptions (Pub. Res. Code § 21099).

To the extent the commenter is suggesting that the Draft EIR should have analyzed an alternative with more non-residential uses and decreased residential use, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, “[a]n EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project” such as decreased housing and increased commercial uses, which would not substantially change the design of the Project to reduce environmental effects. Additionally, this position is inconsistent with the commenter’s concerns in Comment 13.8 which fault the EIR for not guaranteeing the Project’s buildout assumptions and asserting that “the DEIR is compelled to proposed enforceable mitigation measures to assure the proposal is built out as a mixed use development.” Furthermore, the Draft EIR already analyzes a reduced development Alternative which would reduce residential units by 25 percent (Draft EIR at page 6-12). Please also see Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Response 13.12
The commenter states the Draft EIR failed to address indirect environmental impacts associated with an altered pattern of urban development, suggesting that buildout of the Proposed Project would cause other nearby properties to remain vacant. Please see Response 13.11, which explains that the Project is not responsible for existing environmental conditions. The commenter also alleges, without any support, that “approving this project substantial [sic] alters the pattern of urban development in a manner that contradicts the Seaside General Plan.”31 The Draft EIR analyzed the Project for consistency with existing land use plans, including the Seaside General Plan, in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. The Draft EIR concludes based on substantial evidence that “the Proposed Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan and policy” (Draft EIR at page 4.10-26). The Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation for the Plan Area with a permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0 and allows up to 25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (Draft EIR page 4.10-4).

The commenter also alleges that building the Project as proposed “would produce reasonably foreseeable new or more intensive environmental effects from less efficiency development patterns more GHG emissions, more vehicular miles traveled, more air pollution, and more energy consumption.” It is unclear how the commenter reaches this conclusion. Comment 13.7 from Herum asserts that the City should implement OPR’s recommended GHG mitigation measures, one of which states “Encourage compact, mixed-use projects, forming urban villages designed to maximize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of public transit systems”, i.e., to implement projects precisely like the Proposed Project. (Draft EIR Section 2.3 [“Provide shopping, employment, and housing opportunities for households of various sizes and income levels, in close proximity to one another and the CSUMB campus, and to reduce vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis.”].) Indeed, Comments 13.4 and 13.7 appear to take a conflicting position and fault the 31 The commenter also refers to a “Master Infrastructure Plan”. While the City maintains a Capital Improvement Plan, the City does not have a document titled “Master Infrastructure Plan”, and it is unclear what the commenter is referring to.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1187, Packet Page 1515 City for acknowledging that the Project residents would be relocating from other places within the region.

The legislature specifically requires consideration of the impacts associated with the denial or the reduction of density of housing projects. More specifically, Gov. Code § 65589.5(b) explains that “It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects… without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” As discussed in Section 65589.5(a) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” Under SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, the legislature specifically notes that the inability of the state to construct housing has resulted in “increasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to affordable homes far from growing job centers.” The goal of the Project is not to re-develop the area with low density development within Fort Ord, but to create a vibrant pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented development (refer to Section 2.3 of the Draft EIR, Objective 4), which requires higher density development to ensure pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. The multi-modal transportation benefits of the Project would not occur if the development is spread out, as it would be more difficult and time-consuming to use alternative modes of transportation. Indeed, the benefits of a mixed-use development requires a particular critical mass of density in order to be realized. Pedestrian-active commercial areas generally require higher Floor Area Ratios (FAR) than auto oriented centers. Similar concepts have been incorporated into the state’s mixed-use incentives, such as SB 743, which requires projects to have a minimum FAR to be eligible for certain partial CEQA exemptions (Pub. Res. Code § 21099).

The comment also generally refers to “growth inducing” effects. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential for growth inducing effects in Section 5.1. This section notes that the Proposed Project will add approximately 4,900 residents and 751 jobs, noting that “[t]he Proposed Project would slightly exceed ABMAG’s population and housing unit projections by 1,368 and 58, respectively.

Employment growth would be within the employment projections of the Draft Seaside 2040 and AMBAG 2018 RGF projections” (Draft EIR at page 5-2). That analysis also explains that “the Plan Area is an infill development and would not extend infrastructure to induce further development in hinterland areas. The Proposed Project would reduce the potential for uncontrolled growth in the region due to the demand for housing to accommodate general growth and growth associated with CSUMB’s enrollment goals and the environmental impacts associated with uncontrolled growth and urban sprawl” (Draft EIR page 5-3).

Response 13.13
The commenter states that the SVGB has experienced overdraft and sea water intrusion. The commenter states municipal and private water utilities are considered non-overlying users and have no rights to take groundwater as a source of supply, and MCWD has no documented water right to serve the Project. The commenter states the 6,600-AF water supply allocation to Fort Ord is actually the historic peak usage of the Fort Ord property.

Please refer to Response 9.15 for a discussion regarding the 6,600 AFY allocation from FORA and MCWD’s groundwater rights. Please refer to Response 9.5 regarding seawater intrusion.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1188, Packet Page 1516 Response 13.14
The commenter states there is no evidence that future demand in the Ord Community will be met by recycled water and desalinated water, and no other potable supplies have final environmental review or identified sources of funding.

The commenter references Table 4.16.12, which does not exist in the Draft EIR or WSA. It is assumed this reference was intended to be Table 4.16-1, Marina Coast Water District Projected Cumulative Water Demand – Ord Community, which identifies recycled water and desalinated water as sources of water supply coming online in 2020 and 2025, respectively.

Please see Response 9.21 regarding recycled water. As noted therein, the Advanced Water Purification Facility is currently being constructed. The Phase 1 Recycled Water Project will have an initial yield of 4,100 AFY, of which 600 AFY would be available to MCWD. Please see Response 9.10 regarding desalinated water supplies and the Draft EIR’s reliance on assumptions in MCWD’s 2015 UWMP.

The Draft EIR Appendix M identifies a number of offset and in-lieu storage programs to offset the water demands of the Proposed Project. The proposed programs to address the 261 AFY potable water supply shortfall include: (1) a Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses in-lieu storage and recovery program, which would provide up to 450 AFY as recycled water suppliesincrease, (2) a Seaside Highlands and Super Field recycled water substitution program to offset 53.1 AFY of potable water use, and (3) a Main-Gate offset program, which would require the previously approved MainGate project to utilize 42.99 AFY of recycled water in-lieu of previously allocated potable water supply. These programs do not include desalinated water.

The commenter states MCWD has not evaluated the impact of its UWMP’s projected increase in groundwater pumping on the groundwater basin. This comment does not pertain to this Draft EIR or CEQA process. Environmental review of MCWD’s 2015 UWMP is beyond the scope of CEQA analysis for the Proposed Project. For informational purposes, per Water Code Section 10652, CEQA does not apply to the preparation and adoption of UWMPs. According to Water Code Section 10615, UWMPs are intended to “describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities.” No revision to the Draft EIR is required in response to this comment.

Response 13.15
The commenter states MCWD’s groundwater supply is unsustainable because seawater intrusion has affected MCWD wells. The commenter states that of the 6,600 AF allocated, 5,200 AF must be pumped from the upper aquifer, with 1,400 AF allocated from the Deep Aquifer. The commenter states the Draft EIR did not address seawater intrusion impacts to the upper aquifer.

Please refer to Response 9.15 and Response 9.18 for a discussion of the 6,600 AFY allocation. As noted therein, page 22 of the Draft EIR Appendix M discloses: “The 6,600 acre-feet per year amount includes 5,200 acre-feet from the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, along with 1,400 acre-feet per year from the 900-foot or Deep Aquifer.”
Please refer to the Water Master Response’s discussion of seawater intrusion. Please also refer to Response 9.5 regarding seawater intrusion.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1189, Packet Page 1517 Response 13.16
The commenter states that the WSA assumes there is enough water supply by redistributing previously allocated water to other projects to the Proposed Project. The commenter states that Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 replaces potable water with recycled water through storage and recovery programs to provide potable water to the Plan Area.

This comment summarizes the findings and Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 from the Draft EIR. The commenter is correct in noting that the in-lieu and offset programs identified in the Draft EIR Appendix M redistribute potable water supplies. To the extent this comment contends that the Draft EIR improperly relies on the updated WSA attached as Appendix M, please see Response

10.32. Response 13.17
The commenter states the opinion that Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is legally inadequate because it is not effective and proposes to replace potable water with recycled water. The commenter claims that the Draft EIR does not provide evidence to support the enforceability of this measure and the purpose of the EIR is not satisfied by stating information will be provided later.

Please refer to Response 10.29. As noted therein, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 does not defer mitigation, but rather ensures that the Proposed Project would not be implemented without demonstration of sufficient potable water supply.

As stated in the content of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, the City shall demonstrate the required offset of 261 AFY of potable water to MCWD, and the applicant shall obtain written verification from MCWD that sufficient water supplies have been secured. This is sufficient performance specification to ensure effective implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. In addition, as specified in the mitigation language, offset opportunities are not limited to those identified in the mitigation.

The commenter cites to Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (“Santa Clarita”) (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715 in support of his argument that Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 does not show that the Project has an adequate water supply. This case is factually inapposite. In the Santa Clarita case, the EIR at issue only stated that there “could be a deficit of supply,” but contained no “reasonably accurate estimate” of the ability to provide water. The EIR tried to cure this by requiring a demonstration of an adequate supply of water before recording of a final tract map, but the court found this bare statement failed to meet an EIR’s information requirement.

Notably, in Santa Clarita, no potential source of water was put forth. In contrast, the Project’s EIR includes a detailed recycled water and in-lieu storage program which would supply water to the Project. The Draft EIR properly notes that sufficient water supplies must be secured prior to issuing the final map, but also includes sufficient information about how the Project’s water demands will be met. Notably, later case law has held that when “an EIR makes a sincere and reasoned attempt to analyze the water sources the project is likely to use, but acknowledges the remaining uncertainty, a measure for curtailing development if the intended sources fail to materialize may play a role in the impact analysis” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (“Vineyard”) (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432). The Vineyard court also held that “none of the Court of Appeal decisions on point holds or suggests that an EIR for a land use plan is inadequate unless it demonstrates that the project is definitely assured water through signed, enforceable ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1190, Packet Page 1518 agreements with a provider and already built or approved treatment and delivery facilities.

Requiring certainty when a long-term, large-scale development project is initially approved would likely be unworkable, as it would require water planning to far outpace land use planning.” (See also Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1091 [upholding analysis where the urban project relied upon water which was offset from prior agricultural uses].) Therefore, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 constitutes an effective means of mitigation, and no revisions are required.

Response 13.18
The commenter states the opinion that any increase in water use is a substantial change in the Project that requires further analysis. The commenter states that agreements between the Army and MCWRA do not constitute a water right for the Plan Area, and claims that a Supplemental EIR must be prepared due to substantial changes in the Project. Aspects of this comment appear to have been copied from another comment letter on a different project. Nevertheless, responses are provided below.
“The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well” (Draft EIR Section 4.16.1). Reliance upon the 6,600 AFY allocations is supported by (1) the statutory baseline procedures provided under Pub. Res. Code § 21083.8.1 (Draft EIR Sections 3.3 and 4.16.1), and (2) MCWRA’s Long-Term Management Plan and the groundwater sustainability planning process which are designed to ensure the reliability of the 6,600 AFY (Draft EIR page 4.16-20; Draft EIR Appendix M1, Section 5.3 [“Reliability of Water Supply and the Regional 6,600 AFY Allocation”]). Furthermore, the purpose of CEQA is to analyze impacts in comparison to existing conditions, not to fix existing environmental issues. (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 [“The FEIR was not required to resolve the [existing] overdraft problem, a feat that was far beyond its scope”]).

Please also refer to Response 9.15 and the Water Master Response for a full discussion of the 1993 Agreement and 6,600 AFY allocation. As noted therein, the FORA Allocation serves as a limitation to a pre-existing water right. The Draft EIR does not claim the 1993 Agreement constitutes a transfer of water rights. Rather, the 6,600 AFY supply allocation is considered to be a constrained demand for supply augmentation.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a Supplemental EIR is necessary if there is a change in the project or circumstances, or new information that was not known previously indicates the Proposed Project would have a significant effect on the environment that was not covered in the previously certified EIR. First, the Draft EIR has not yet been certified, therefore procedures associated with a supplemental EIR are not applicable to an uncertified EIR. Second, the commenter’s bulleted list does not constitute significant new circumstances or information. The issue of seawater intrusion in the region is ongoing and well-documented in the EIR.

The Draft EIR expressly discussed sea water intrusion under baseline conditions. More specifically, the EIR clearly states “Seawater intrusion is an ongoing problem in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot and 400-foot aquifer which is North of the Monterey Subbasin) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion. The Draft EIR also incorporated by reference, the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1191, Packet Page 1519 Monterey sub-basin 400-foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has not substantially progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion. (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section

4.2.5.) According to the 2019 Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan, current ‘seawater intrusion extends approximately 7 miles inland within the 180-foot aquifer and 4 miles inland in the 400-foot Aquifer…’ (Draft EIR page 4.9-5; Draft EIR Appendix M1 page 29). The Draft EIR also incorporated by reference the UWMP, which shows the boundaries of seawater intrusion in Figure

4.5, and 4.6 in the Salinas Valley Basin. Seawater intrusion in the Monterey Subbasin, is also discussed on page 4.9-5 of the Draft EIR, which describes that the Monterey Subbasin deep aquifer has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality. As also explained on page 4.9-5 “there is a monitoring well that serves as an ‘early warning system to identify any seawater intrusion…’ (MCWD 2016 UWMP Section 4.2.5, at p. 48).” The City is responsible for implementing the offset and in-lieu storage programs identified in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. Therefore, there is no “unforeseen failure of local agencies to implement the assumed replacement water supply.” Additionally, the “sunset” date of FORA was information is a legal change, and the commenter does not explain how it is relevant to the environmental analysis.

Response 13.19
The commenter states that in 1993 an Annexation Agreement permitted the Army to continue groundwater pumping with the understanding that pumping would eventually cease due to seawater intrusion. The Agreement has not been terminated although MCWRA has not developed the 6,600 AFY potable water project.
“The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well” (Draft EIR Section 4.16.1). Reliance upon the 6,600 AFY allocations is supported by (1) the statutory baseline procedures provided under Pub. Res. Code § 21083.8.1 (Draft EIR Sections 3.3 and 4.16.1), and (2) MCWRA’s Long-Term Management Plan and the groundwater sustainability planning process which are designed to ensure the reliability of the 6,600 AFY (Draft EIR page 4.16-20; Draft EIR Appendix M1, Section 5.3 [“Reliability of Water Supply and the Regional 6,600 AFY Allocation”]). Furthermore, the purpose of CEQA is to analyze impacts in comparison to existing conditions, not to fix existing environmental issues (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 [“The FEIR was not required to resolve the [existing] overdraft problem, a feat that was far beyond its scope”]).

Response 13.20
The commenter states that in 2001 the Army assigned a portion of its groundwater to MCWD, reserving 1,729 AFY for its own use. The commenter states the Army has conveyed some portion of this reserved supply to others, and retains 1,577 AFY.

This comment is noted. Please refer to Response 9.15 and the Water Master Response for a full discussion of the 1993 Agreement and 6,600 AFY allocation.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1192, Packet Page 1520 Response 13.21
The commenter states prior Army review acknowledges that the right to pump groundwater for Fort Ord is limited in time and replacement water supply is required, including in a 1993 EIS and 1996 Supplemental EIS. The commenter states that the planned desalination project and Salinas Valley Water Transfer Project have not been implemented.

This comment does not relate to the adequacy of the EIR analysis or CEQA process. Please refer to Response 9.15 and the Water Master Response for a full discussion of the 1993 Agreement and 6,600 AFY allocation. In addition, MCWD is currently taking steps to implement new water supply projects, such as RUWAP, which would supply water to the Proposed Project. In the meantime, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to implement offset and in-lieu programs to offset the water demands of the Proposed Project.

Response 13.22
The commenter states “Overdraft and seawater intrusion have continued and accelerated in the 180-foot and 400-foot Aquifer Subbasin, and the Deep Aquifer is being depleted.” The Proposed Project would not utilize water from the 180-foot and 400-foot Aquifer Subbasin. As noted in the Draft EIR, the Project utilizes water from MCWD, which utilizes water from the Monterey Subbasin.

Please see Response 13.18 for discussion of Seawater Intrusion.

The commenter also expresses opposition to the Project. This comment is noted. Please refer to the Water Master Response. Please also refer to Response 9.5 regarding seawater intrusion. The commenter’s opposition to the Project is noted and herewith shared with City decision makers.

Please see Response 11.3 for discussion of a water moratorium.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1193, Packet Page 1521 August 22, 2019
Community Development Department
Attn: Kurt Overmeyer
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Campus Town Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2018021079
Dear Mr. Overmeyer:

This comment letter addressing the Draft Environment Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Campus Town project (“the Project”) is submitted on behalf of my company, Petrovich Development Company, LLC (“Petrovich”), the City’s selected developer for the City’s approved Main Gate project as the result of a 2016 RFP selection process.

The City solicited my company to participate in an RFP process in May of 2016 which ultimately led to Petrovich Development Company, LLC being selected in December of 2016 as the developer for the City-owned and City-approved Main Gate project. For the first two years, I was assured numerous times by City staff that an adequate supply of dedicated water was already allocated to the Main Gate project. It was determined the amount of potable water for the mixed-use project at Main Gate was 350-acre feet. As a developer of nearly four decades, I am very familiar with the importance of adequate water on the coast of California. I repeatedly asked and was repeatedly assured by City staff that this was not an issue at all.

In November of 2017, after expending nearly a million dollars as of that date to pay for planning, civil engineering, architectural renderings, legal fees negotiating two hotel leases, retail leases, hotel and residential feasibility studies, City consultants and lawyers and an appraisal based on the more intense plan that required 350-acre feet, I submitted our completed application to the Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) for approval. In August of 2018, to my utter shock and dismay, MCWD rejected the Main Gate Mixed Use Plan indicating it did not have sufficient water to serve the project. A copy of MCDW’s denial is attached as Exhibit A. After expending another $500,000 correcting this situation and paying more to my many consultants to re-plan the entire site and additional money to the City to study the revised plan, have CEQA lawyers review it and have additional studies conducted and to revise other reports, I resubmitted a lower intensity plan to MCWD. The project lost 138-acre feet of potable water, at least 18 months of a flourishing economy and an immense amount of precious risk capital after meeting ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1194, Packet Page 1522 every letter of my commitments to the City under the ENA. This now brought my total risk capital without a purchase agreement to over $1.5 million!
In September of 2018, I resubmitted the plan with the lower water allocation. MCWD officially approved this allocation (See Exhibit B). I was told by City Staff the matter was settled and no one could take this water allocation away from the Main Gate project.

The entire plan with all its tax generating uses and jobs is dependent on all 212-acre feet of potable water due to many reasons including the enormous amount of infrastructure to develop all 56 acres. After three years of studying the development and hiring the best civil engineers to work through all its challenges, the cost to develop Main Gate exceeds $28 million for the offsite improvements and backbone infrastructure and another $20 million for on site improvements before buildings can be constructed. Most of this cost is required to develop a single acre of Main Gate. The project is barely feasible with 212-acre feet of potable water. The cost to use recycled water and plumb all the fixtures with two systems as identified in the DEIR for Campus Town makes Main Gate financially infeasible and the City will lose the muchanticipated tax revenue, jobs and much needed physical services for the City and CSUMB. With less than 212-acre feet of water and the enormous amount of money needed to develop even the first acre of Main Gate, it no longer works economically to develop the project whether it be my company or anybody else’s.

Please understand this letter is not intended to throw every possible roadblock it could at the Campus Town project like others do as a matter of course. I am in favor of the Campus Town project becoming a reality in the fullness of time to help support Main Gate and vice versa.

However, it should not be processed in manner that does not destroy the financial feasibility of Main Gate whether I am the ultimate developer of the Main Gate project or not.

I am speaking to you as your chosen developer to bring Main Gate to fruition, not as an environmental group trying to snuff out all projects. I also hope you appreciate that I am not hiding behind some fictious “community group” with this comment letter and am putting my single objection upfront under my name. The focus of this comment letter is on the single issue that directly effects the Main Gate project, the City, CSUMB and PDC. I am also a resident of the region. The goal is to make all projects become reality. Through this letter, it is my hope that the City corrects the defects of the DEIR for the Project relative to the approach taken on water. The proposed reallocation of existing water supplies alone renders the DEIR fatally defective through the flawed treatment of the Project’s inadequate water supply.

Taking water allocated by the City that supports the approval of three projects in order to support approval of a fourth project not only reeks of unfair business dealing, it is a blatant example of the “paper water” argument that LandWatch and others accuse every governmental agency of doing in the region which they claim violates CEQA law. It has been argued that California law does not authorize cities to issue WSAs verifying adequacy of water supplies. The ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1195, Packet Page 1523 “updated” WSA prepared by the City and used in this DEIR according to many has no legal validity and cannot stand as a legally adequate basis for this EIR. Again, I want Campus Town to become reality and to do so as soon as possible because it helps the region, CSUMB and Main Gate, but this is the wrong path to follow. In fact, this approach will delay Campus Town from becoming a reality in the short term because the updated WSA won’t stand up if challenged by the usual environmental groups that make a living doing so.

The DEIR discloses there is a 301+ acre feet shortfall of water for Campus Town. The developer of Campus Town should be required to do what I did as the developer of Main Gate:
reduce the size of the project to meet available water supply. Over time, with all of us working together, more water can be made available through the longer-term solutions that have been describe to me by City Staff and all sites can reach their potential as opposed to killing Main Gate now when Campus Town is requesting approval for a 30+ year supply of residential units based on the pace residential development over the past two decades of residential development.

In summary, the DEIR for Campus Town is fatally flawed and should be redrafted to solve its water issues without impacting not one but three projects that are critically important to the City, CSUMB and the region. Campus Town should be required to stand on its own two feet relative to water and not devastate other developments to the detriment of the City and other interested parties. The city should avoid stepping into the very arguments being used as a weapon against all projects in the region and not attempt to create a never before imagined Water Offset Program without any analysis as to the environmental and economic impacts.

Yours truly,
Paul Petrovich
Petrovich Development Company, LLC
Attachment – MCDW’s Denial Letter
MCDW’s Approval Letter
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1196, Packet Page 1524 Letter 14
COMMENTER: Paul Petrovich, Petrovich Development Company, LLC DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 14.1 through 14.3
The comment provides an overview of their potential modifications to Main Gate Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The comment references Main Gate water consumption of up to 350 AFY, and asserts that the Main Gate project “lost 138-acre feet of potable water.” However, this is not accurate. The Main Gate Specific Plan was approved in August 2010, with an estimated EIR water demand ranging from 207.9 AFY to 213.1 AFY (with only 149 AFY allocated), not 350 AFY (City of Seaside 2008: page 4.13-9). The EIR for that project analyzed gross square footage ranging from approximately 775,000 square feet to 843,500 square feet, however the City issued an RFP for less than maximum buildout (i.e., only 650,000 square feet)32 The commenter also suggests that the Main Gate project should not be required to utilize recycled water and “is barely feasible with 212-acre feet of potable water.” The comment also suggests that the Campus Town EIR has proposed “[a] reallocation of existing water supplies.” However, use of recycled water at the Main Gate project has been expressly contemplated since its original approval.

The Main Gate Specific Plan, which was approved in August 2010, expressly states “When recycled water becomes available in the region, landscape uses within the [Main Gate] plan area and other areas would convert to recycled water, allowing the City to reallocate potable groundwater to other uses…The project’s irrigation system is planned [to] be designed to connect to that recycled water system once completed, reducing potable water demand by nearly 22 AFY” (City of Seaside 2010:
page 6-2 and 6-3). Similarly, the updated WSA referenced in the comment also includes substantial discussion of recycled water use on the Main Gate site, including up to 52.99 AFY of recycled water (2018 Main Gate WSA, Table 2-2).33 While the Main Gate Specific Plan was approved in 2010, no specific development permits have been issued for that project. As such, the City of Seaside may still further condition Main Gate project to be consistent with the existing Specific Plan directive to utilize recycled water.

As stated in the Draft EIR, there is a discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply (Draft EIR page ES-33).

However, water supply impacts on the Proposed Project will be less than significant with the adoption of mitigation measures, which include water offset programs. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, this includes potable water offset programs and in-lieu storage programs, which replace existing potable water uses within the Seaside sub-basin with recycled water uses. This approach is consistent with CEQA (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1091 [upholding analysis where the urban project relied upon water which was offset from prior agricultural uses]). Please refer to pages ES-33 and 4.9-25 of the Draft EIR for more information on the water offset programs.
32 As explained in the 2016 Main Gate request for proposal “[t]he City has also committed sufficient potable water for development of approximately 650,000 square feet of commercial building space on the site.” 33 The Main Gate WSA was approved by MCWD during their board meeting on November 19, 2018. The agenda packet and meeting video are available at the following links, respectively:
https://mcwd.org/docs/agenda_minutes/2018-11-19_board/2018-11-19.pdf https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/m_3HX6961GRMsvkqSCdwmGeJ8rwpRZrR/media/395494?fullscreen=false&showtabssearch=true &autostart=false
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1197, Packet Page 1525 In addition, California policy encourages the use of recycled water because it maximizes the beneficial use of the state’s water resources. (See California Constitution Article X, Section 2; Water Code Section 100; see also Water Code Section 275.) Indeed, the California Legislature has declared that, when recycled water is available, using potable water for non-potable uses “is a waste and unreasonable use of water within the meaning of Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.” (See Water Code Section 13550.)
The commenter also asserts that the EIR should “be required to…reduce the size of the project…” The Draft EIR already analyzed a reduced density alternative. (See Draft EIR Section 6.) An EIR is not required to analyze multiple variations of project alternatives.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1198, Packet Page 1526 >>> David Lesikar <[email protected]> 8/22/2019 4:50 PM >>> To:

Kurt Overmeyer
Economic Development Department
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside California 93955
Re: The Campus Town DEIR
Dear Mr Overmeyer,
I’ve happily resided in Seaside as a homeowner since 2013, and — since my birth in Santa Maria in 1949 — I have resided only near the California coast, in every county touched by US 101 from San Diego to San Francisco.

Regarding the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2019 (DEIR), I describe below some changes and additions to the DEIR that I believe would have a relatively high benefit-to-cost ratio for the value and/or attractiveness of Campus Town.

Climate Change
I want to address the DEIR’s sobering summary of the very large economic losses forecast to result from climate change (page 4.7-1). These potential losses compel me to suggest — in the bullet points below — what I believe are relatively cost-effective anti-climate change features that could be built into Campus Town, but aren’t called for by its DEIR.

As much as is feasible, Campus Town should take full advantage of the fact that our Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) is supplying us with carbon-free electricity (hydroelectric, solar, and wind) as the default to all customers in its area, and its MBprime option is 100%-renewable carbon-free electricity (solar, wind, and storage only) — for only $0.01 extra per kilowatt hour.(1) Because of this, MBCP’s main goal has become to encourage and induce customers to make the switch — step by step — from fossil fuels to carbon-free electricity.(2) MBCP plans to do this by promoting charging stations; by providing rebates for buying electric vehicles and rebates for replacing natural gas appliances with electric appliances; and by continuing to push their electricity-generation rates farther below PG&E’s: MBCP’s electricity-generation rates are already 5% below PG&E’s, and are extremely likely to go lower as MBCP finishes building up cash reserves and as they continue to take advantage of the falling costs of renewable electricity and electricity storage.(1)(2)(3) For ground-transportation vehicles, the switch to electricity should be relatively easy because of electric vehicle’s lower fuel costs — and much lower maintenance costs: For example, the 5-year cost of ownership of the 240-mile-range version of the Tesla Model 3 has been estimated to be

4.5% lower than that of the Toyota Camry LE.(4)
In light of MBCP’s carbon-free energy at lower and lowering rates (as detailed in the preceding paragraph), Seaside’s Campus Town project should:
• Require the developer to sign up for MBprime 100%-renewable carbon-free electricity for all of Campus Town’s electric meters.
• Support the switch from fossil fuel to carbon-free-electric vehicles and appliances:
• Require electric-heat-pump building heating and cooling: I spoke extensively about this with a junior partner and family member of Carswell Heating and Sheet Metal, which is the local contractor for Costco’s heating & air conditioning offer. (He stated that the Campus Town project would be far too large for Carswell to bid on its HVAC work.) He also stated that — taking into account both Campus Town’s microclimate and that Campus Town would be of passive-solar design with the code-required good insulation — he would recommend air-source heat pumps without any supplemental electrical-resistance space heating (except — perhaps — in bathrooms). He estimated that — compared with moderately-highefficiency natural-gas heating and electric air conditioning — moderately-high-efficiency air-source heat pumps would cost about 40% more to provide and install, and about 25% more to operate and maintain. But if, as expected, the price of our electricity decreases over the years, then the cost to operate heat-pumps will decrease.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1199, Packet Page 1527 • Require hybrid electric-heat-pump water heaters: Consumer Reports has published “If your electric water heater is near the end of its life—13 years is average—switching to a hybrid heater could lower your waterheating bills by $350 a year. They meld a standard electric water heater with a heat pump that captures warmth from the air. Those we’ve tested could lower bills by about 60 percent compared with an electric heater.”(5)
• Because electrically heated clothes dryers, ovens and stove tops are already commonly used in our area (according to the Carswell Heating junior partner cited two rectangular bullet-points above), let’s prohibit natural-gas versions of these appliances in Campus Town. • To provide for a future (probably within 2 to 4 decades) when the majority of ground transportation will be running on electricity instead of fossil fuel, it would be wise to stub out, to all of Campus Town’s unenclosed parking areas, enough electrical transmission capacity to cover the gap between (a) the the amount of electric vehicle charging required by current code, and (b) at least Level-2 charging for about half of all parking spaces not only for living units that lack garage parking, but also for employee parking at places of work. In addition, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measure GHG-1(b) should — in addition to requiring one installed single-port Level-2 charging station per single-family residence — require wiring that is stubbed to a convenient location for one additional Level-2 charging station for each additional residential-garage parking space, as well as sufficient and proper electrical-panel breaker capacity to support all installed and stubbed out Level-2 charging stations in the garage. • To the extent that the above suggestions for electrification of Campus Town are incorporated into its final construction plans, it needs to be ensured that this project provides sufficient electricity-distribution capacity and wiring to Campus Town as a whole — and to each building and parking lot.

Affordable Housing
For cost-effective low-income-workforce housing for our area, it would be good to provide multi-story mediumquality apartments that have, for example, vinyl flooring and countertops instead of hardwood/stone/tile flooring and stone/tile countertops — and moderately priced fixtures. In addition to locating this kind of apartments in the Commercial Center Sub-Area and the University Village Sub-Area (page 4.10-510), I believe that it would be very advantageous to locate more such multi-story medium-quality apartments across Street A from the hotel, to accommodate hotel workers and others.

Existing large Monterey Cypress trees
To further enhance the attractiveness of ready-for-occupancy Campus Town to homeowners, tenants, and visitors: The large, healthy (and beautiful) Monterey Cypress trees (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) that exist here and there in the project area should be built around — not built or paved over — to the extent that is feasible, by adjusting the location and design of structures and paved surfaces.

Sincerely,
David Lesikar
Seaside homeowner since 2013
References
(1) https://www.mbcommunitypower.org
(2) Statements made by boardmembers and staff at MBCP meetings that I’ve attended as a member of the public. (3) https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-megapack-utility-scale-energy-storage - July 29, 2019 (4) https://loupventures.com/tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-slightly-cheaper-than-a-camry/ - July 26, 2019 (5) https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/10/bright-ideas-that-save-energy-and-money/index.htm - August 2013
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1200, Packet Page 1528 Letter 15
COMMENTER: David Lessikar
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 15.1
The commenter states that the Project should require the developer to implement the following measures which the commenter incorrectly asserts “aren’t called for by the DEIR” for Monterey Bay Community Power’s (“MBCP”) carbon-free electricity option, support electric vehicles and appliances, require electric heating and cooling, require hybrid electric heat-pump water heaters, prohibit natural gas large appliances, include electric vehicle charging spaces, and provide sufficient electricity-distribution capacity and wiring to each building and parking lot.

Contrary to the assertion in the comment, many of these provisions are already incorporated into the Project, and additional measures are not needed to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to less than significant. As discussed in Impact GHG-1, while the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, these impacts would be rendered less than significant by incorporated mitigation measures, which reduce the Project’s operational GHG emissions to net zero. Because there are no post-mitigation GHG emissions impacts, the Draft EIR need not include any additional mitigation measures.

Regarding the suggestion to use MBCP carbon-free electricity, as stated in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, MBCP is the default energy provider in the Plan Area; therefore, future residents would already take advantage of this program. The Draft EIR notes that although future residents and tenants would have the option to opt out of MBCP’s services and connect to Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”) service, approximately 97 percent of accounts maintain enrollment with MBCP (Draft EIR page 4.7-10). MBCP’s emits only 2 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced; in comparison, PG&E emits 641.35 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced. The Project would also comply with the new California Building Code requirements, which require installation of solar (see Draft EIR page 4.7-7 and 4.7-10). Under Title 24, all low-rise residential units are required to have rooftop solar panels; the Project would comply with Title 24. In addition, for high-rise residential and commercial units, the GGRP requires rooftop solar that is designed to net out the energy use of those buildings. As required by Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d), the Project applicant would be required to mitigate all of the Project’s GHG emissions to achieve a net zero increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions.

Regarding electric vehicles, the commenter proposes that the developer “stub out” enough electrical transmission capacity to unenclosed parking areas such that there could be Level-2 charging stations at half of all spots, including spots to be used by employees. The commenter also proposes that, in addition to the EV charging station requirements found in GHG-1(b), the developer “stub out” sufficient wiring and infrastructure to allow an additional Level-2 charging station for “each additional residential-garage parking space.” The Specific Plan Building Type Standards in Section 4.6.2 already require “An electrical conduit shall be installed at the time of construction to facilitate the future installation of EV charging stations to at least 10 percent of parking spaces.” Additionally, the Green House Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) already includes “Equip each single-family residence within the Plan Area with one single-port EV charging station. The EV charging stations shall achieve a similar or better functionality as a Level 2 charging station.” The GGRP also requires charging stations for commercial facilities, more specifically “Provide charging opportunities to at ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1201, Packet Page 1529 least the number of parking spaces required by the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 1 requirements. Commercial buildings include retail, light industrial, office, hotel, and mixed-use buildings. The EV charging stations shall achieve a similar or better functionality as a Level 2 charging station.”
The commenter also suggests installing more than one electric vehicle charging station in individual homes. This suggestion is not anticipated to reduce GHG emissions further; most electric vehicle owners do not have a commute which would necessitate the need for daily electric vehicle charging,34 consequently homes with more than one electric vehicle are unlikely to need two electric vehicle chargers. Additionally, homes with more than one electric vehicle would be able to use the Level 2 charging station for the first vehicle and would be able to use standard wall outlets for Level 1 charging of subsequent vehicles as needed. Furthermore, homeowners which desire such an option would not be precluded from installed a second charger.

The commenter also recommends that the EIR encourage the switch from natural-gas-powered appliances, including stoves and water heaters, to electric appliances. Specifically, the commenter recommends requiring electric-heat-pump building heating and cooling, and hybrid electric-heat pump water heaters. The Project is already required to comply with newly implemented, and stringent standards for such fixtures under the updated California Building Code. The California Building Code (Title 24, Cal. Code Regs.) is an area of law heavily regulated by the California Building Standards Commission who reviews and updates the Code every three years for feasibility (Health and Safety Code § 18949.6). The California Building Code standards which go into effect in 2020 already contain highly stringent energy efficiency standards, and from a policy perspective the City is not currently proposing to second guess the decisions of the agency tasked with making such feasibility decisions, which are continuously being updated (see Draft EIR page 4.7-6).

Since publication of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant has prepared the GGRP, which identifies a suite of actions that would achieve compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d) as required by the Draft EIR. Please see Appendix P.

Response 15.2
The commenter recommends providing vinyl flooring and countertops and moderately priced fixtures for low-income housing, and locating more multi-story medium-quality apartments across Street A from the hotel for hotel workers and others.

As noted in Draft EIR Section 2.4.1 “the Proposed Project would provide affordable housing consistent with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Seaside Municipal Code Sections 17.32 and 17.33). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, “[a]n EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project” such as the use of less expensive building materials or the location of multistory apartments near the proposed hotel, which does not substantially change the design of the Project to reduce environmental effects. The comment pertains to building material preferences and a suggested reorganization of proposed land uses, and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, further response is not warranted.
34 The average miles driven per day of a plug-in electric vehicle in California is between 15 and 30 miles, with few users driving more than 45 miles (California Center for Sustainable Energy 2013). Typical electric vehicles can travel between 150 and 310 miles on one charge (Coren 2019).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1202, Packet Page 1530 Response 15.3
The commenter recommends preserving Monterey Cypress trees within the Plan Area, and designing around these trees.

The commenter does not suggest tree removal would cause a significant environmental impact, but rather proposes preserving existing trees to “further enhance the attractiveness” of the Project to homeowners, tenants, and visitors. The Specific Plan provides detailed standards and guidelines regarding the use of landscaping, including trees, for aesthetic purposes (Specific Plan Section 3.5).

Please refer to Response 9.27 regarding tree replacement plantings. Tree replacement requirements include replacing Monterey Cypress trees as on-site street trees or off-site trees at a ratio of 1:1.2.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1203, Packet Page 1531 From: "David Lesikar <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> Date: August 22, 2019 at 9:14:07 PM PDT
To: "Kurt Overmeyer" <[email protected]>
Subject: Here’s my summary comment regarding my comments on Campus Town’s DEIR! Campus Town could be the world’s first town designed for a mostly electric-vehicle future! ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1204, Packet Page 1532 Letter 16
COMMENTER: David Lessikar
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 16.1
The commenter states the Project could be designed for an electric future. Please refer to Response

15.1 regarding the commenter’s suggestions. The comment pertains to a preference for electric vehicles and does not address the adequacy of the EIR or CEQA process. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1205, Packet Page 1533 >>> Fred Watson <[email protected]> 8/22/2019 2:05 PM >>> Dear Kurt,
Please extend the deadline for Campus Town DEIR comments by one week.

Only learned today of the existence of the DEIR, and I believe the comments are due today.

I may be wrong, but I don't *think* I received the Notice of Availability, which would be surprising given that - as a community leader of the FORTAG project - I attended multiple events during the charrette for Campus Town and have maintained a fairly regular communication with City Staff about Campus Town and related projects.

Many thanks,
Fred Watson
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1206, Packet Page 1534 Letter 17
COMMENTER: Fred Watson
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 17.1
The commenter requests a deadline extension for comments on the Draft EIR. The commenter states they may not have received a copy of the NOA.

The Notice of Availability was available on the City of Seaside’s Campus Town Project website and was published on July 8, 2019. The comment period for the Draft EIR started on July 8, 2019 and ended on August 22, 2019 for a total of 45 days, which satisfies the 45-day public review period set forth in Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. August 22, 2019 was the end date for receiving comments on the Proposed Project. However, please also see Response 18.1 through Response

18.6. ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1207, Packet Page 1535 Comments on the Campus Town Specific Plan
23 Aug 2019
Fred Watson, community co-leader of the FORTAG project
It is appreciated that the Specific Plan acknowledges FORTAG and includes a Class IV bikeway along Malmedy. Some important associated details are as follows:

1. Figure 1.7. The caption is ambiguous about what is included in the “previously proposed bicycle network”. The preceding text mentions FORTAG, but the proposed FORTAG spurs to and through Campus Town are not shown on the map.

2. Page 37 – Fig 2.9. This conceptual bike network diagram should be clearer about the class of bicycle connections between the three “T” symbols. The connections between the three “T”s should all be physically separate from vehicles (i.e. Class I or IV) except at intersections. For example:
a. A safe Class IV connection along Malmedy is clear, but the map also indicates that this transitions to a less-safe Class II connection on Lightfighter before reaching the FORTAG “T” that heads northwest to the CSUMB campus.
b. It is unclear how a safe (i.e. physically separate from vehicles) bike connection is made between the north end of Malmedy and the FORTAG “T” to the east, on the north side of the “Campus Adjacent” section of the project (where an historic road bed exists crossing the CSUMB Southern Oak Woodlands).
c. It is unclear what class of bike facility is proposed along Gigling. From other parts of the Specific Plan, we can infer that this will be Class I under the transmission lines along the northern side of Gigling. But it is unclear how the connection is made along and across Gigling, from Malmedy to the southern FORTAG “T”. The map seems to suggest a midblock crossing, which doesn’t seem optimal.

3. Page 43 – lower left.
a. Please also state here that these connections to the FORTAG spurs will occur at accessible gradients. This is a crucial conceptual design element at this stage; and it needs to clearly inform subsequent engineering & grading design. b. Please also state the rationale for the location of these connections, which includes:
i. That there is a desired regional flow of bike and pedestrian traffic to and through Campus Town extending from CSUMB Main Campus Library/Quad area to existing bike facilities in Seaside that extend as far north as the intersection of Normandy Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard
ii. That bikeways should generally follow terrain contours, which in this area generally run in a south-west to north-east direction (See Fig. 1.4) iii. Bikeways should reach CSUMB at key focal points i.e. the Tanimura & Antle Library (east end of Divarty) and planned Recreation Center (further west along Divarty)
iv. That the eastern of the two northern connections should follow the historic road bed that runs through the CSUMB Southern Oak Woodlands v. That the southern connection should follow the wide north-south high-voltage transmission line easement parallel to and east of General Jim Moore Boulevard (GJMB) as far as Normandy, substantially reducing the risk of vehicles striking ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1208, Packet Page 1536 cyclists on the section of GJMB north of Normandy (the section that does not have a Class I bike facility).

4. Page 49 - Sec 3.2.2; Page 56 – Fig. 3.4; Page 64 – Fig. 3.8; Page 65 – lower-right photograph.

We appreciate the 10-ft Class IV bikeway on Malmedy.

5. The specific plan should more specifically indicate how bike and pedestrian traffic would be able to move through Campus Town safely and accessibly from the southern FORTAG-spur connection point to either of the two northern FORTAG-spur connection points in a manner that is physically separate from vehicles. For example:
a. Page 56 – Fig. 3.4. A FORTAG spur is proposed to connect north and northeast from this Malemedy/Lightfighter intersection toward the CSUMB Main Campus near the planned CSUMB recreation center. There is substantial terrain in this area. The specific plan should indicate how the connection occur at accessible gradients. b. Page 93. We appreciate this pedestrian-oriented interface between Campus Town and the CSUMB Southern Oak Woodlands. It should be made clear how cyclists will be able to traverse this area from the historic road bed north of Col Durham (near where the Army Gymnasium used to be) to the north end of Malmedy. Are cyclists intended to use what is drawn as more of a pedestrian (i.e. non-bike) boulevard, in order to avoid sharing the roadway with vehicles on Col Durham?

6. Page 198. The plan is unclear about whether reconstruction of Malmedy road is in Phase 1 or Phase 2. It should be in the first phase, including the Class IV bikeway.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1209, Packet Page 1537 Letter 18
COMMENTER: Fred Watson
DATE: August 23, 2019
Response 18.1
The commenter states appreciation for provision of a Class 4 bikeway along Malmedy. The commenter states the caption on Figure 1.7 is ambiguous regarding the “previously proposed bicycle network.”
The “previously proposed bicycle network” referenced by the title of Figure 1.7 refers to the “future bicycle network” dashed lines shown in the figure. This includes bicycle network improvements that have been proposed previously and are anticipated to be constructed in the future.

Section 1.9.5 of the Specific Plan explains that Figure 1.7 shows the existing and previously planned bicycle facilities within and surrounding the Plan Area. That section also states that FORTAG plans for connections to and through the Plan Area. The FORTAG bicycle network has only been proposed and is not currently existing in the Plan Area.

Response 18.2
The commenter states Figure 2.9 is unclear regarding the class of bicycle connections between the three “T” symbols. The commenter recommends the “T” symbols be physically separate from vehicles (Class 1 or Class 4) except at intersections.

Figure 2.9 of the Specific Plan has been updated to indicate a Class I bikeway along the linear park under the power lines; this revised figure can be viewed in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR.

Bikeways on CSUMB campus are not within the Plan Area, which includes the Class II connection on Lightfighter Drive heading north and FORTAG connection along this route. The primary connection to the FORTAG trail, indicated by the “T” symbol, is at the Malmedy Road/Lightfighter Drive transition, with the connection along Colonel Durham Street a neighborhood connection serving the Monterey School of Law. There is not adequate space to create a separated bike facility on Colonel Durham Street, as described in Response 18.5.

The FORTAG connection along Gigling Road is shown for informational purposes; the classification and exact connection orientation is at the discretion of the Transportation Agency of Monterey County, which is the lead agency for the FORTAG project. Gigling Road is outside the Plan Area and beyond the scope of the Project.

Response 18.3
The commenter requests revisions on page 43, including that connections to FORTAG spurs will be at accessible gradients, and requests rationale for the location of certain bikeway connections.

The following statement has been added to page 43 of the Specific Plan (Appendix B to the Draft EIR):

Connection to the FORTAG spurs will occur at accessible gradients where feasible and to the extent that those connections fall within the boundary of this Specific Plan.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1210, Packet Page 1538 The following statement has been added to the Specific Plan (Appendix B to the Draft EIR):

There is a desired regional flow of bike and pedestrian traffic to and through Campus Town extending from CSUMB Main Campus Library/Quad area to existing bike facilities in Seaside that extend as far north as the intersection of Normandy Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Bikeways are part of the mobility network, which includes streets, sidewalks, and pathways; and terrain contours were considered during route selection for bikeway improvements. The commenter’s suggestion regarding bikeways on the CSUMB campus are not applicable to the Project, as this is outside the Plan Area. The commenter’s proposed route along the high-voltage transmission line easement parallel to General Jim Moore Boulevard is also outside the Plan Area and not applicable to the Project. Please see Response to Comment 1.19, for discussion of bicycle improvements and access.

Response 18.4
The commenter states appreciation for the 10-foot Class 4 bikeway on Malmedy. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 18.5
The commenter requests specific indications of how bicycle and pedestrian traffic would be able to move through the Plan Area and access the southern and northern FORTAG spur connection point.

As described in Response 18.1, bike routes along Lightfighter Drive north of Malmedy Road are not within the Planning Area. Engineered grades along this route are not within the jurisdiction of the Specific Plan.

The historic roadbed north of Colonel Durham Street is not within the Plan Area and is not part of the Project. Colonel Durham Street is a narrow, calmed street, designed for vehicles traveling at less than 25 miles per hour (mph), making it safe for as a shared street or Class III bike facility. Because most of the land on the north side and some portions of the south side of Colonel Durham Street are not under the control of the City of Seaside, there is no room to add a Class II or Class I bike facility. Please also see Response to Comment 1.19, for discussion of bicycle improvements and access.

Response 18.6
The commenter requests clarification of when the Malmedy Road reconstruction would occur (Phase 1 or Phase 2), and requests it is completed in Phase 1, including the Class 4 bikeway.

The Malmedy Road construction would occur during Phase 2. It is not included during Phase 1 because it is located east of the Phase 1 boundaries (refer to Figure 2-4 of the Draft EIR), and use of the roadway for cyclists would not increase substantially until Phase 2 buildout.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1211, Packet Page 1539 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1212, Packet Page 1540 4 Amendments to the Draft EIR
The following pages provide a summary record of all proposed text amendments to the Draft EIR.

Most amendments are the result of comments received during the public review period, and directly respond to those comments, or correction of typographical errors within the Draft EIR.

These amendments serve as clarifications and amplifications on the content of the Draft EIR. None of the changes would warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The amendments serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR, but do not introduce significant new information.

Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underline font) where text is added. Other minor clarifications and corrections to typographical errors are also shown as corrected in this format, including corrections not based on responses to comments.

4.1 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Page ES-2:
…Department of Defense-Defense Manpower Data Center Monterey Bay, and former Fort Ord land; and is bounded to the south by Gigling Road, and Ord Military Community housing and the United States Department of Defense Army Hospital.

Page ES-3:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 explains that where the lead agency could describe the Proposed Project as either the adoption of a particular regulation or as a development proposal, the lead agency shall describe the Proposed Project as the development proposal for the purpose of the environmental analysis. To ensure a conservative approach in analyzing environmental effects under CEQA, the Proposed Project assumes maximum buildout projections of new housing units, new commercial development, and related uses. See Table ES1. The actual rate and amount of development (up to the maximums) could differ; buildout is dependent on market conditions, birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, availability of resources, and regulatory processes from Federal, State and local regulations.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1213, Packet Page 1541 Page ES-27 (revised row only):

Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the
Proposed Project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.

This impact would be less than significant.

None required
COA HAZ-1: If non-building related ACMs,
baseball field light towers, abandoned
boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines,
proposed for removal are encountered
during demolition or grading, the applicant
shall survey the materials for ACMs, and
contaminants of concern prior to disturbing
and removing the materials. If discovered
onsite, ACMs will be handled in compliance
with applicable regulations.

Less than significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1214, Packet Page 1542 Page ES-33 (revised row only):

Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. Impacts related to regional
wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, and telecommunication
infrastructure would be less than significant.

However, water supply impacts would be
significant without mitigation. With
mitigation, impacts related to water supply
would be less than significant.

UTIL-1 Water Offset Programs. To address
the discrepancy between the Proposed
Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water
demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of
available potable water supply, the City
shall secure the additional water supplies
needed for the Proposed Project. To do so,
the City shall implement programs to
supply a minimum of 260.3 261 AFY.

Programs to achieve this include, but
would not be limited to:
 Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses
in-lieu storage and recovery program,
which would replace a minimum of
311.08 AFY of existing potable water
use with recycled water (up to 450, as
outlined in Court’s October 25, 2019
Order and Motion for Approval of In
Lieu Groundwater Storage Program.

AFY as recycled water supplies
increase). If implemented, this program
alone could address the remaining
potable water supply needed for the
Proposed Project.
 Seaside Highlands and Soper Field
recycled water substitution program to
offset 53.1 AFY of potable water use.

The Seaside Highlands development
was constructed with recycled water
mains to supply the landscape irrigation
systems. This system is currently fed
with potable water, but recycled water
will be available within the next few
years. Providing recycled water for
irrigation of that project would make up
to 43.1 AFY of potable supply available
for reallocation from Seaside Highlands.

An additional 10 AFY may be made
available by converting the City’s Soper
Field sports complex (adjacent to
Seaside Highlands) to recycled water.
 Main-Gate offset program, which would
require the previously approved MainGate project to utilize 42.99 AFY of recycled water in-lieu of previously
allocated potable water supply.
 The City may also require dualplumbing of buildings to use recycled water for sanitary fixtures (flushing
toilets and urinals), which will offset
potable water demand with recycled
water.

Prior to issuance of a final map, the City
Less than significant with
mitigation
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1215, Packet Page 1543 Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
shall demonstrate the offset of 260.3 261
AFY of potable water based upon available
programs, and the applicant shall obtain
written verification from MCWD that
sufficient water supplies have been
secured.

Section 2 Project Description