Psomas
targets, and serve as a qualified GHG reduction plan cons istent with Guidelines Section 15183.5.” The CAP was adopted by the City Council on March 5, 2018, after an extensive public process that involved two public open house meetings, three public meetings with the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), and public hearings before both the Planni ng Commission and City Council. A draft of the CAP was also circulated for public review and input along with the corres ponding CEQA document (Initial Study/Negative Declaration).
The CAP established the following GHG reduction goals:
27 percent below 2009 levels by 2020 (equivalent to 14 percent below 1990 levels), exceeding the AB 32 State target of 15% below 2009 levels (equivalent to 1990 levels); 49 percent below 2009 levels by 2030, equivalent to the SB 32 State target; 59 percent below 2009 levels by 2035 (no State target); and 83 percent below 2009 levels by 2050, equivalent to the EO S-3-05 state target.
To reduce the City’s GHG emissions, the CAP identifies 5 climate strategies, 27 measures, and 142 actions.
The CAP includes a “Consistency Checklist” in A ppendix D as a tool for determining an individual project’s consistency with the CAP. As with most long-range plans, conformity with every policy, strategy, measure, or implementation action is not necessary for a project to be found to be consistent with the CAP.
In fact, many of the CAP’s measures and actions are not applicable at the project level and many of the measures and actions are only supportive in nature and did not contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions quantified in the CAP. Thus, through the CAP process, the City deve loped the Consistency Checklist as a way to meaningfully determine if an individual proposed development project is consistent with the overall CAP. The Consistency Checklist is intended for use in the CAP implementation and monitoring process and to support the achievement of individual CAP measures as well as Pasadena’s overall GHG reduction goals. As noted in Appendix D of the CAP, “Projects that meet the requirements of this [Consistency] Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with P asadena’s CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuan t to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).” Accordingly, the comment that the Ch ecklist is not in alignment with the CAP as a whole and has no procedural authority under CEQA is inaccurate.
The Consistency Checklist identifies a 3-step process for determining a project’s consistency with the CAP:
Step 1: Complete a Master Land Use Application Form
Step 2: Demonstrate Consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan Step 3: Demonstrate Consistency with Pasadena’s CAP, through one of the following three options:
o Option A: Sustainable Development Actions – Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporatin g applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals. o Option B: GHG Efficiency - Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with Pasadena’s per person GHG efficiency thresholds.
Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
o Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions – Demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions.
Regarding Step 1, an application for the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is on file with the City of Pasadena, Department of Planning and Community Development.
Regarding Step 2, Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR includes a detailed analysis of consistency with the General Plan and concludes that the Project and Project w ith Building A Residential/C ommercial are consistent with the General Plan and would not require a General Plan Amendment (see pages 3.6-7 to 3.6-12).
Regarding Step 3, Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR evaluates the Project pursuant to Option B: GHG Efficiency.
As shown in the analysis on pages 3.4-14 to 3.4-19 of the Draft EIR, the annual emissions from the Project and the Project with Building A Residential would be below the GHG efficiency metric identified in the CAP Consistency Checklist for the opening year of the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Based on the above and the analysis in the Draft EIR, the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial were found to be consistent with the CAP.
Response 3. The commenter cites a “performance indicator ” from the CAP (related to zero-net energy standards for new buildings) and claims that the analys is of the Project’s consistency with the CAP using Option B of the CAP Consistency Checklist “fa ils to ensure that requirement is met.” 1 The commenter’s assertion that the CAP’s “performance indicators” are requirements for projects is incorrect. As noted on page 42 of the CAP, the performance indicators are meant to “evaluate the pe rformance of each measure and monitor its success.” The performance indicators ar e not meant to be universally implemented or achieved on every individual development project. The performance indicators span a wide range of categories and approaches including, but not limited to, the City’s installation of bike lanes; shifting travel mode shares; reducing vehicle idling; implementing the General Plan Land Use Element; reducing building energy use; shifting to renewable and carbon-free energy; reducing water consumption per capita; increasing waste diversion; and planting additiona l trees. Given the ranging applicability of these performance indicators—and their in tention for monitoring CAP pr ogress, rather than imposition on projects—conformity with each performance indicator is not required for a project to be deemed consistent with the CAP. Nor is it appropriate to determine a project’s consistency with the CAP by analyzing the project’s compliance with the performance indicators. Rather, as explained in Response 2 above, the City developed the CAP Consistency Checklist as a tool to meaningfully evaluate individual development project’s consistency with the CAP.
Regarding the comment that the City, “limited the analysis of the Pasadena CAP to a single calculation of GHG efficiency metric for only one year, ignoring the GHG impact of the remaining 29 years the buildings will be operational, and all of the long-term goals as described in the CAP,” Option B of the Consistency Checklist includes a graduated set of GHG efficiency thresholds for comparison with the project’s first operational year GHG emissions. Contrary to the co mmenter’s assertion, this approach does not ignore future emissions, but rather evaluates a project’s highest emitting year, as GHG emissions are anticipated to reduce on an annual basis into the future as more stringent GHG reduction measures and regulations are implemented.
1 It is unclear what the commenter intended by referring to CAP page 63. The performance indicators on this page, along with the measure and implementation actions, are related to energy conservation in municipal facilities.
Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
Response 4. See Responses 2 and 3, above. The commenter ’s assertion that “the Checklist is not determinative of CEQA compliance” and that “consistency with the Checklist is not a reasonable substitute for consistency with the CAP and instead establish es an unprecedented procedural standard outside of CEQA guidelines” are not comments as to how the DEIR fails to satisfy CEQA’s disclosure and good faith analysis requirements, and the commenter does not identify what provisions of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines the project’s GHG analysis doesn’t satisfy. As further explained in Response 2, conformity with every policy, strategy, measure, or implementation action is not necessary for a project to be found to be consistent with the CAP.
Response 5. The Pasadena CAP is a City-initiated and City-a dopted plan that was developed through a public process that itself was subject to CEQA review. As the agency that prepared and adopted the CAP, and as the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, the City has the authority to prescribe the procedures for demonstrating compliance with the CAP. Regarding Th reshold 3.4b, based on the detailed analysis in Section 3.4 the EIR the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial were found to not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulatio n adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Moreover, the proposed Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would implement many of the GHG reduction tec hniques expressed in the CAP, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Clim ate Change Scoping Plan. The proposed Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be an urban infill, mixed-use project, surrounded by complementary land uses within a Transit Priority Areas (TPA) and High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) serviced by two Metro L (Gold) Line stations as well as bus lines. The Project is required to be built to the latest California Green Building Standards Code resulting in a variety of GHG emissions-reducing elements, including energy and water efficient bui lding construction, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and bicycle storage and parking.
The commenter asserts that not conforming with a si ngle “performance indicator” in the CAP, Zero Net Energy for all new construction of residential buildin gs as mandated by Title 24, is reason to deem the Project inconsistent with the CAP. As explained in Response 2 above, conformity with each and every policy, measure, or action in a plan is not required to determine that a project is consistent with the plan.
Further, as explained in Response 3, the CAP’s perfo rmance indicators are not meant to be universally implemented or achieved on every individual developmen t project, but rather are intended to evaluate the performance of the CAP’s measures and to monitor the CAP’s success. Regardless, the Project is consistent with the applicable requirements of Title 242, which is the intent of this performance indicator.
Response 6. The Project’s land use patterns would not change over time, as the Project is an individual development project and not a long-range plan. As explained in Response 3, the Consistency Checklist includes a graduated set of GHG efficiency thresholds for comparison with the project’s first operational year GHG emissions. This approach evaluates a pr oject’s highest emitting year, as the Project’s GHG emissions are anticipated to decr ease on an annual basis into the fu ture as more stringent GHG reduction measures and regulations are implemented at federal, State, and local levels. This includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the transition to 100 percent renewable carbon free energy by the year 2045 for electricity providers as required under the State of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, and a higher percentage of electric vehicles in the region’s fleet mix. In other words, the GHG emissions stemming from operation of the Project (or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial) would be reduced over time
2 To clarify, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Stan dards (Energy Code) has solar photovoltaic (PV) system requirements for all newly constructed low-rise resid ential buildings. The 2019 Energy Code defines a low-rise residential building as: “A building, ot her than a hotel/motel, that is occupan cy group: R-2, multifamily, with three habitable stories or less; or R-3, single family; or U-building, located on a residential site”.
Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
as the both the electric grid (including electricity us ed by the Project) and automobiles (including those commuting or visiting the Project’s uses) progressively transition away from fossil fuels. The commenter’s comparison of the Project’s and the Project wi th Building A Commercial/Residential’s 2026 GHG emissions inventory with the CAP’s efficiency metrics for 2031 and beyond is an apples-to-oranges comparison, as such future effici ency metrics take into account more stringent GHG reduction measures and regulations that are set to go into effect ove r time. The CAP Consistency Checklist clearly expresses the City’s intention to evaluate the GHG emissions of a project’s first operational year against the appliable efficiency metric as the method for determining consistency with the CAP.
Response 7. The commenter states that the Project (assumed also to refer to the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial throughout) is inconsistent with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) and that the CAP efficiency threshold should be based on a per-resident basis instead of the service population (resident and workers). The commenter states that the Project’s GHG analysis omits discussion of how th e Project is inconsistent with any of the goals including the 2050 goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels. The commenter states that the Project’s net operational emissions are 3,257 metric t ons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2e)/year and that there would be 14.67 MTCO2e /capita which greatly exceeds the CARB Scoping Plan targets of 6 MTCO 2e for 2030 and 2 MTCO2e for 2050. The 14.67 MTCO2e calculated by the commenter is not consistent with the calculation procedures adopted by the City in the CA P. Using the procedures under the CAP, the Project would result in 3.52 MTCO2e per service population per year. Moreover, multiplying the estimated annual emissions is not accurate as it assumes any project built now would have identical GHG emissions throughout the course of a project’s lifetime, which is patently false. As discuss ed further in Response 8, based on continuing implementation of GHG reduction plans and policies, GHG emissions are likely to decrease over time especially through changes in the vehicle mix towards more electric and renewable energy sources.
The commenter also states that th e GHG efficiency threshold should not be based the service population (workers and residents) and instead should be comp ared against a per reside nt basis for comparisons between the Project and the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. First, the use of the service population was to establish consistency with the City’s CAP based on Option B and not to directly compare GHG efficiency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, which is not a prot ocol specifically recommended by the City. As mentioned previously, the City has developed a fra mework for individual projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAP and, in doing so, the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan . Because the CAP specified the use of a service population (residents + full time employees) in its ca lculation of GHG emissions, the analysis correctly used service population in the calculation of GHG effici ency. Secondly, the use of service population is appropriate for the City considering that not all de velopment projects have a residential component or a small residential component. As such, an efficiency th reshold based on a per resident basis would be less accurate than a service population basis and would unde restimate the GHG efficiency of a project due to the low number or absence of residents. Consequently , the GHG emissions analysis appropriately applied the service population consistent with the procedure established within the City’s CAP.
Response 8. The commenter states the Project is not consistent with Executive Order B-55-18 because the Project will use gasoline, diesel, and natural gas that will result in GHG emissions. While the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial would result in the consumption of gasoline, diesel, and natural gas at buildout, it is equally true there would be substantial changes in the types and quantities of fuel used in the State of California in the lead up to the 2050 target year of this Executive Order. There will be continuing efforts focused on re ducing GHG intensity for electricity providers, reduced use of natural gas for heating needs, transition to electric and fuel cell vehicles, promotion of mass transit, development Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
at TPAs and HQTAs, and reduction in Vehicle Mil es Travelled (VMT), among other GHG reduction measures. Based on the commenter’s criteria that since the Project would use gasoline, diesel, and natural gas it is not consistent with Executive Order B- 55-18, no populated development project would be consistent with this Executive Order since society still currently relies on these sources of fuel. The Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial cannot require residents or workers to forgo the use of gasoline or diesel vehicles; however, the State of Calif ornia is actively promoting the use of alternative fueled vehicles consistent with the Scoping Plan and Executive Order B-55-18. There has been a steady progression in the adoption of electric vehicles with 16 percent of new vehicle registrations in 2022 being zero emission vehicles in California (CEC 2022). The Governor of California has also established an Executive Order in 2020 that phases out the sale of gasoline and diesel fueled cars by 2035. The California Air Resources Board is developing a plan consistent with this Executive Order. Whether this Executive Order mandates the phase out of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars or whether the market share decreases the use of these fossil fueled vehicles organically, nu merous automotive experts anticipate that substantial or majority share of on road vehicles will be alternatively fueled in the future. In addition, California is also still using natural gas fueled electricity generation plants. Consequently, the use of natural gas as an energy source is still pervasive but will diminish or possibl y cease because of the Renewable Portfolio Standards which requires 100 percent renewable electricity ge neration by the year 2045 in addition to future regulations which may restrict the use of natural gas.
These macro level sources of emissions, such as from transportation choices and electricity generation by utilities, are beyond the control of local land developers. However, the Project is consistent with the goals of Executive Order B-55-18 because it focuses on aspects that affect GHG emissions within its purview, including but not limited to developing residential and commercial uses in a TPA and HQTA that is situated proximate to both light rail stations and bus stops serving eight bus lines that will provide non-single passenger vehicle options, provides complementary resi dential and commercial uses that would result in trip and trip length reductions, provides infill redevelopment that will promote pedestrian travel and reduce trips and trip lengths, provides bicycle racks to suppor t non-automotive travel, electric vehicle chargers to promote alternative fueled vehicles, and the energy efficiency measures required under the State’s Title 24 building code and the California Green Building Code effective at the time of construction. Because the Project would result in infill redevelopment in high energy efficiency buildings proximate to multimodal sources of transportation, it presents land use development that is fulfills the progression of reduced GHG emissions needed to meet the goals of Executive Order B-55-18, the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, and the City’s CAP. Additionally, all of these benefits of the Project meet the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTC/SCS) Connect SoCal.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022 (May 23, last accessed). New ZEV Sales in California.
Sacramento, CA: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data -reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle- and-infrastructure-statistics/new-zev-sales.
Response 9. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, as explai ned in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR and in Responses 1 through 8 above, the Project does not conflict with the Pasadena CAP, the CARB Scoping Plan, or EO B-55-18. See Response 7 regarding the Scoping Plans’ per-capita emissions goals for 2030 and 2050.
Response 10. The commenter states that the land uses in the CALEEMod inputs do not mention the 151,000 square feet (sf) of medical office uses, 3,000 sf from the restaurant, 93,000 sf of apartments, and 197,000 sf of condominiums. Appendix B of the Draft EIR pr ovided modeling scenarios for existing, Project, and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial land uses. As shown within Appendix B, the CalEEMod Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
specifically accounted for 151,000 sf of medical office uses, 3,000 sf from the restaurant, 93,000 sf of apartments, and 197,000 sf of condominiums. The commenter likely did not notice the change in the CalEEMod project titles throughout the 265 pages of modeling output. The CalEEMod project titles include Affinity – Existing, Affinity – Proposed, and Affinity - Exchange Project were provided at the beginning of each model run. As such, the comment stating that the CalEEMod modeling did not include all the relevant land uses is incorrect.
The commenter states that the water metrics stated in the Draft EIR do not align with the CalEEMod inputs.
The “water metrics” referred to by the commenter are estimates associated with the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) provided in Appendix I of the Draft EIR are discussed only in Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems. These estimates are discussed solely in the context of determining whether adequate water supplies would be available for the Project an d Project with Building A Residential/Commercial in compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 610 and are presented nowhere else in the Draft EIR.
As such, these figures are not intended to be the “DEIR water metrics” nor are they asserted to be in the Draft EIR. The water demand figures used in the CalEEMod modeling were derived from the estimates provided in Will Serve information from Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. Whereas the WS A calculated water demands based on Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation’s 2020 wastewater generation ra tes. These different sources of data are the most appropriate for each application, as discussed further below.
CalEEMod inputs are intended to be a reasonable wors t-case scenario to clo sely capture the probable emissions but not be outside the realm of possibility. As such, Project-specific information provided by the future water service provider (i.e., PWP) is the mo st relevant and accurate for purposes of modeling estimated GHG emissions as this represents a reasona ble worst-case. However, the purpose of Will Serve information is to provide a statement of ability to provide that service at that specific point in time. On the other hand, the purpose of a WSA is to ascertain whether there would be adequate water supplies not only now, but in context of Citywide and regional water demands including under pot ential future multi-year drought conditions. For clarity, it is noted that the annual water demand figures from the WSA cited by the commenter as “DEIR estimates” include water use by Whole Foods Market. This is appropriate for the WSA, to provide an apples-to-apples comparison of water demands, as calculated within the WSA, for existing and future land uses across the site. Howeve r, for CalEEMod modeling, Whole Foods Market is not included as it is an existing source of emissions that would continue in the same way with implementation of the Project or Project with Buil ding A Residential/Commercial. In conclusion, the assertion that the “inputs in the CalEEMod parameters” were deliberately change d from the defaults to reduce calculated GHG emissions is inaccurate and unsubs tantiated. The purported “misalignment” is an issue of separate analyses using the most appropriate methodology for each topical issue. The conflation of these two sets of data does not support any deficiency in the GHG emissions modeling.
The commenter states the application of PWP’s GHG intensity factor cannot be reconciled with the GHG used in the CalEEMod modeling. The commenter states that the City’s utility published a CO 2 intensity
factor of 822.62 lbs/MWh for CO 2, 1.77 lbs/MWh for methane and 3.78 lbs/MWh for N 2O for the year 2020. The Draft EIR extrapolated a CO 2 equivalent GHG intensity factor of 802 lbs/MWH for the year 2026 to be as accurate as possible. The Draft EIR’s GHG intensity factor used in the CalEEMod modeling accounted for the reductions in the GHG intensity f actor that would occur because of the mandatory reductions in GHG emissions from the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). In the year 2020, the Power Content Label for the City of Pasadena states that the percentage of power generation from clean renewable energy with zero emissions is 29.6 percent. By th e year 2050, 50 percent of electricity produced in California would need to be from clean renewable sources. Accordingly, to obtain the GHG intensity factor for the Project buildout year of 2026, a straight-line interpolation of the percentage of renewable energy for Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
the year 2020 of 29.6 percent found in the 2020 Powe r Content Label for the City of Pasadena and the 50 percent renewables requirement of the RPS for the year 2030. The interpolated value of 802 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/MWh) for the year 2026 was calcula ted based the renewable energy percentages used for power generation for the years 2020 and 2030. The GHG intensity factor was understated because the renewable energy percentage was increased from 50 percent to 60 percent in 2018. As such, the commenter’s suggestion that the CalEEMod modeling use of the GHG intens ity factor for the year 2020 found in the Power Content Label would overstate the amount of GHG emissions, since the Project would not utilize electricity for the new buildings till the year 2026, and the GHG intensity factor would have decreased from the 2020 value is inaccurate.
Response 11. As addressed in Responses 1 through 10 above and Responses 12 through 14 below, no changes to the Draft EIR are necessary and no significant impacts related to GHG emissions would occur.
As such, no additional alternatives requi re consideration to reduce or avoi d a significant impact related to GHG emissions. Nevertheless, even if this were not th e case, an alternative that involves only retrofit or renovation of the six existing buildings proposed fo r demolition, and presumably maintains preservation and integration of the two historic buildings, would be neither feasible nor environmentally superior to any of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR. Add itionally, the argument via Preservation Green Lab that the “greenest building” is building re use is applied without considering the context of the site’s existing condition, land uses, or location near transit.
The commenter’s letter correctly cites that Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to “describe a reasonable range of alternatives”. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires the alternatives be feasible, avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, and attain most of the project objectives (see page 4-1 in Section 4.0, Alte rnatives, of the Draft EIR). When appropriately considering the site-specific context of the Project, it is clear the suggested alternative would be neither reasonable, feasible, reduce GHG emissions, nor meet most of the objectives.
First, and most important, there is no possibility that maintaining operation of the existing buildings, as any land use type, is environmentally pr eferable to constructing a higher-d ensity infill redevelopment of an extremely underutilized and deteriorating site that has two light rail sta tions within approximately ¼-mile as well as multiple bus lines that run on South Arroyo Parkway with bus stops immediately proximate.
Because of the latter, the Project site is within a SCAG-designated HQTA and TPA (refer to page 2-5 of the Draft EIR). The proposed Project (or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial) is precisely the type of development that is preferable on proper ties within HQTAs and TPAs, consistent with the 2020 ‒ 2045 RTP/SCS, to reduce emissions produced from tran sportation sources, as the number one contributor to GHG emissions in the United States. As such, even if the commenter’s suggested alternative was feasible (which it is not, as discussed further below) and if there were a significant GHG emissions impact (which there would not be), this alternative would not avoid or reduce a significant GHG emissions impact. Among other things, the suggested alternativ e would result in operation of build ings that are less energy efficient than new-built structures, including all feasible retrofits; and would result in greater vehicle miles traveled (VMT)/capita than the Project, Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, or any of the alternatives in the Draft EIR. The commenter refers to renovated buildings having the greatest short-term GHG savings.
However, when considered in context, the short- term GHG savings would be at the expense of higher overall GHG emissions by not making good use of an underutilized site.
Second, the proposed use types in either developm ent scenario could not reas onably be developed and operated in the separated and dissimilar structures distributed across the site, purely from a logistical point of view. To provide quality care, assisted living fac ilities require many specialized accessory uses that are located on premises, including but not limited to, gath ering areas, a kitchen and dining facilities, and Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
medical-care related areas such as ex amination rooms and specialized st orage and disposal facilities. As such, the suggested alternative is patently infeasible. Finally, another important facet of viewing the Project in context is that housing is sorely needed throughout California. This includes market rate as well as senior living/assisted care facilities.
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Gu idelines also states that “There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed othe r than the rule of reason” (see page 4-1 of the Draft EIR). In short, the suggested alternative would be unreasonable and, if discussed during Draft EIR preparation, would have been discussed among t hose alternatives eliminated from detailed discussion (Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR). Additionally, as there is no substantial evidence there would be a significant impact related to GHG emissions, there is no need to consider additional alternatives to the Project or Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Response 12. Table 3.9-4, City of Pasadena CEQA Transportation Thresholds, on page 3.9-7 of the Draft EIR and presented below for ease of reference, summarizes the metrics and thresholds for the City’s adopted transportation analysis methodology pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743.
TABLE 3.9-4
CITY OF PASADENA CEQA TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS
Metric Description CEQA Impact Threshold
1. VMT Per Capita VMT in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs)
An increase over existing Citywide VMT
per Capita of 22.6
2. VT Per Capita VT in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs)
An increase over existing Citywide VT per
Capita of 2.8
3. Proximity and Quality of
Bicycle Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a ¼-mile of bicycle
facility types
Any decrease in existing citywide 31.7% of
service population (population + jobs)
within a ¼-mile of Level 1 & 2 bike
facilities
4. Proximity and Quality of
Transit Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a ¼-mile of transit
facility types
Any decrease in existing citywide 66.6% of
service population (population + jobs)
within a ¼-mile of Level 1 & 2 transit
facilities
5. Pedestrian Accessibility The Pedestrian Accessibility Score uses the mix of destinations, and a network-based walk shed to
evaluate walkability
Any decrease in the Citywide Pedestrian
Accessibility Score
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2021
For the “Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network” and “Proximity and Quality of Transit Network” metrics, a significant CEQA impact occurs if there is, as noted in th e table, a decrease in the existing Citywide metrics for these two measures. In other words, if either of these metrics gets worse (lower) this represents a significant impact. This makes sense, as increased use of alternative transportation methods goes hand in hand with reducing VMT per capita.
This is indicated in Table 3.9-5, Transportation Impa ct Analysis Summary for the Project, on page 3.9-10 of the Draft EIR and presented below for ease of reference – which is the same table presented in commenter’s letter from Appendix G-1 of the Draft EIR– with a “<” symbol in front of the threshold values for these metrics.
Jason Van Patten
June 3, 2022
Psomas
TABLE 3.9-5
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
FOR THE PROJECT
Transportation Performance Metrics
Significant Impact
Cap (Existing)
Incremental Change
(Existing + Project)
Significant
Impact?
VMT Per Capita >22.6 19.5 No
VT Per Capita >2.8 2.0 No
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network <31.7% 32.0 No Proximity and Quality of Transit Network <66.6% 66.8 No Pedestrian Accessibility <3.9 3.9 No
VMT: vehicle miles traveled; VT: vehicle trips
Source: Pasadena DOT 2020.
As such, the Draft EIR conclusion that there would be a less than significant impact related to these two metrics for both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial is correct. Moreover, the slight increase in these metrics for both development scenarios indicates there would be improved proximity and quality of both the bicycle and transit networks in the site vicinity. The commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR inaccurately analyzed transportation impacts is unsubstantiated.
Response 13. As addressed in Responses 1 through 12 above, no changes to the Draft EIR are necessary and no mitigation measures related to GHG emissions are required. Advocates for the Environment has been added to the Project’s mailing list as requested.
R:\Projects\PAS_Pasaden\3PAS012100\Environmental Documentation\RTC\AFE Comment Letter Response Memo-060322.docx 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected]
May 2, 2022
Jason Van Patten, Senior Planner
City of Pasadena
Planning and Community Development Department
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Via U.S. Mail and email to [email protected]
re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Planned Development #39 (Affinity Project), SCH No. 2021080103
Dear City of Pasadena:
Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the proposed Planned Development #39 (Affinity) Project at 465-577 S. Arroyo Parkway in the City of Pasadena (the Project). Two versions of the project are proposed, each with their own greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. Both alternatives include plans to rezone the site from CD-6 to a Planned Development (PD) zone, increase the allowable building height, demolish six existing buildings, and construct two new buildings. The Project involves a 154,000 square-foot medical office building with 850 parking spaces (Building A Medical) and an assisted living building with up to 95 units (Building B). The alternative, Project with Building A Residential Commercial, includes Building B with same specifications as the Project, but replaces Building A Medical with 197 residential units and a leasing management office (Building A Residential/Commercial). We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) released in January 2022 and submit comments regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR’s Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA GHG Significance Analysis
The DEIR included the following two GHG significance thresholds: “Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment” (3.4a) and “Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases” (3.4b) (DEIR, 3-4.12). Almost exclusively focusing on threshold 3.4b, the significance analysis revolved around one metric from the Pasadena Climate Action Plan (CAP). Near the end of the significance analysis, the DEIR briefly and conclusively mentioned consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal plan, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, the California Green Advocates for the Environment
A non-profit public-interest law firm
and environmental advocacy organization
1 Attachment A
Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 2
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Building Standards Code, and the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan, ignoring consistency with many of the identified “relevant programs and regulations” that it previously summarized in section 3.4.2 (DEIR, 3-4.5). This method of significance analysis violates CEQA (Public Resources Code §§ 21000–21189.70.10) by being deficient in several areas, as discussed below.
Consistency with the Pasadena CAP
The discussion of whether the Project exceeds threshold 3.4b was primarily based on the Pasadena CAP as an applicable plan. The CAP consistency analysis exclusively focused on a brief procedure, a three-step consistency checklist (Checklist), contained in the CAP which purportedly analyzes a project’s consistency with the CAP to bypass the consistency analysis required by CEQA. The Pasadena CAP declares that conforming with the steps, including one of the three options in step three, demonstrates compliance with CEQA requirements under CEQA Guidelines sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Yet, the DEIR did not mention steps one and two from the Checklist and narrowed the analysis even further to Option B within step three as the exclusive determining factor for CAP consistency. And even if the DEIR had discussed and met all three of the required steps contained with the Checklist, it would not be sufficient to show consistency because the Checklist is not in alignment with the CAP as a whole and has no authority to prescribe CEQA procedure.
First, the Checklist largely disregards the CAP goals by suggesting that adherence to the Checklist alone (including steps one, two, and one of the three options in step three) is sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. When adhered to, this procedure allows consistency with the CAP to be analyzed without considering any of the guidance within the CAP. For instance, even though the CAP specifies a 2035 residential and commercial performance indicator of “950,000,000 kWh of electricity use from carbon-free energy,” and that “100% of new residential units built between 2020 and 2035 are zero-net energy (ZNE) (as mandated by Title 24) and 25% of new commercial units built between 2020 and 2035 are ZNE (exceeds Title 24),” one of the consistency options in the Checklist (Option B) fails to ensure that requirement is met.
Here, the City chose Option B of Checklist Step 3, which limited the analysis of the Pasadena CAP to a single calculation of GHG efficiency metric for only one year, ignoring the GHG impact of the remaining 29 years the buildings will be operational, and all of the long- term goals as described in the CAP. Consequently, the relevant performance indicators were left out of the DEIR’s discussion of CAP consistency (Pasadena Climate Action Plan, p. 63 and p. 60). Because the Checklist insufficiently accounts for CAP goals, it is not a replacement for the CAP as a whole and the DEIR needs more detailed discussion of GHG impacts beyond Checklist Step 3 to show consistency with the CAP.
2 3
1 cont
Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 3
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Second, despite the statements within the Pasadena CAP itself that led the City to adopt the Checklist in its analysis, the Checklist procedure is not determinative of CEQA compliance.
Notably, the DEIR did not discuss consistency with the Pasadena CAP’s recommendations beyond adherence to Option B of the Checklist, allowing parts of the applicable plan, including performance indicators, to be completely ignored when Option B of the Checklist is chosen.
This framework essentially creates a new procedural requirement that not only differs from, but also reduces the standard required by CEQA. Therefore, because the CAP contains information not accounted for in the Checklist, consistency with the Checklist is not a reasonable substitute for consistency with the CAP and instead establishes an unprecedented procedural standard outside of CEQA guidelines.
Ultimately, this DEIR consistency analysis cannot stand because the City of Pasadena lacks the authority to prescribe a procedure for showing consistency with the Pasadena CAP.
While the chosen threshold 3.4b encourages comparison between the proposed project and relevant GHG emissions plans, it does not permit an applicable plan to circumvent CEQA Guidelines by prescribing its own separate procedure to demonstrate CEQA compliance.
Therefore, because the Pasadena CAP does not have authority to specify procedure to comply with CEQA, the City must show consistency with an applicable plan notwithstanding the Checklist procedure.
Accordingly, the DEIR should have demonstrated consistency with entirety of the Pasadena CAP to determine whether the Affinity Project conflicts with any of its included analysis and recommendations. Instead, the City insufficiently analyzed consistency by narrowly focusing on only one of the steps in the Checklist, identifying a single metric for only the first year of operation, to conclude no significant GHG impact. If it had engaged in a more complete analysis, the City would have found inconsistency with the CAP because there is no indication that the Affinity Project is conforming with some requirements of the CAP, including the performance indicator of Zero Net Energy for all new construction of residential buildings, as mandated by Title 24 (Pasadena Climate Action Plan, p.60). Effectively, given threshold 3.4b, inconsistency with the CAP indicates a significant GHG impact. Thus, the DEIR should be modified to reflect this inconsistency and conclude a significant impact, requiring mitigation to the extent feasible.
An agency must consider a project’s land use patterns over time to reasonably evaluate the GHG emissions impacts (Cleveland Nat'l Forest Foundation v. San Diego Ass'n of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 513). The DEIR accounted for a building lifespan of 30 years when amortizing the construction emissions, indicating the expected lifespan of the Project.
Therefore, the full analysis of the GHG impact of the Affinity Project should likewise include the likely GHG emissions through the year 2056 (30 years beyond the Project’s first operational year of 2026). As the Project will likely be operating well into 2050, that the Project must show consistency on a long-term scale to comply with CEQA. 4 5
6 Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 4
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] The DEIR’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the CAP is based on analysis of a single year, and it would have come to the opposite conclusion had it conducted a full analysis. Appendix D of the CAP includes thresholds measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), which is a standard unit for quantifying GHG emissions.
Considering consistency with the Pasadena CAP for the full lifespan of the Affinity Project, the service population GHG efficiencies of 3.52 MTCO2e/year for the Project will exceed the threshold of 2.73 MTCO2e/year starting in 2031, and even without accounting for decreased efficiency as the buildings age (CAP Consistency Checklist, p. 9). And both this metric and the
2.15 MTCO2e/year efficiency metric for the Project with Building A Commercial/Residential is unlikely to meet the 2050 goal in the Pasadena CAP that adopts a statewide emissions goal of
86.2 MMTCO2e. Although the Pasadena CAP does not specify efficiency thresholds beyond the year 2035, applying the same factor used to determine prior thresholds would result in an estimated goal of 1.19 MTCO2e/year for the year of 2050
1. Therefore, both the Project (3.52
MTCO2e/year) and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (2.73 MTCO2e/year) conflict with the long-term goals established in the Pasadena Climate Action plan.
Inconsistency with Other Applicable Plans
Under threshold 3.4b, the Project would have significant GHG emissions if it were to “Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases” This language requires that the EIR analyze the Project’s consistency with all other applicable plans, not just the Pasadena CAP.
The DEIR briefly analyzed consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan from the California Air Resources Board (2017 CARB Scoping Plan), but there are significant inconsistencies which the analysis failed to find. The Scoping Plan was developed to facilitate California’s compliance with SB 32, which requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (Health & Safety Code § 38566). Although a discussion of consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan was briefly included in the DEIR, it notably omitted a discussion of how the Affinity Project is consistent with any of the goals, including the 2050 goal of 80% below 1990 levels. The 2017 CARB Scoping Plan sets out statewide goals for total GHG emissions targets of 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030, and 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2050 (CARB Scoping Plan, p. 99). Because the Project’s net operational GHG emissions are estimated to be 3,257 MTCO2e/year and the Project will have 222 residents, the Project’s per-
Pasadena Climate Action Plan, p. 11 and Appendix D Consistency Checklist, p. 9. The 2030 Statewide Target 258.6 MMTCO2e corresponds to 3.57 MT CO2e/Service Person project goal, which related by a factor of 72.44 M (258.6 MMTCO2e/ 3.57 MT CO2e = 72.44 M). Likewise, the 2050 Statewide target of 86.2 MMTCO2e would result in a project goal of 1.19 MTCO2e/yr (86.2 MMTCO2e/72.44 M = 1.19 MTCO2e/yr, rounded to the nearest hundredths-place).
6 cont
7 Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 5
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] capita GHG emissions would be 14.67 MTCO2e/capita, greatly exceeding both the 2030 and 2050 CARB 2017 Scoping Plan targets
2. Comparisons between the Project and the efficiency metrics in the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan should be made on the basis of per-capita (per-resident) emissions, and not on the basis of service population. The alternative service-population approach used by the DEIR double- counts people who live and work on the same project site, as the DEIR itself suggests will be encouraged by the Affinity Project. Double-counting within a service population would result in a falsely inflated denominator, creating the illusion of reduced per capita GHG emissions, so the per resident emissions rate of 14.67 MTCO2e/resident is the right metric for comparison to the Scoping Plan targets. Further, because the statewide targets of 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2050 account for the GHG emissions from all sectors, including high-emission industries like oil refineries and cement manufacturers, any estimate purporting to be consistent with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan for a mixed-use residential project like this one must be significantly lower than the statewide goal.
The DEIR declares consistency with Executive Order B-55-18, but this could not be further from the truth. EO B-55-18 requires the State to achieve carbon neutrality—net zero GHG emissions—by 2050. The Project is inconsistent with EO B-55-18 because it will use gasoline, diesel, and natural gas, and burning such non-renewable fuels results in substantial GHG emissions, including 49,264.78 MTCO2e from natural gas alone (DEIR, 3-3.5)
3. Because the Project is inconsistent with the Pasadena CAP, 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, and EO B-55-18, its emissions will be significant under Threshold b). Thus, the DEIR’s conclusion of no significance violates CEQA.
The DEIR claims that because the Pasadena CAP was created to be consistent with State plans, policies, and regulations, the Project must be consistent with those plans, policies and regulations if the CAP is consistent with them. But this argument is flawed; it is possible the Project to be inconsistent with State plans, policies, and regulations even if the CAP is consistent with them. Some of those inconsistencies, such as the Project’s inconsistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan’s per-capita emissions goals for 2030 and 2050, are discussed above.
The Project may be consistent with the CAP, and the CAP may be consistent in some ways with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, but the Project is inconsistent with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan.
All metrics,!0 (+$#%.,*0'$
.,1+#$#0,0'$+$ .$/0'1+#.$#0'/-) "$
3 Table 3.3-2 displays energy use during operation of the project, estimating 211,629 gallons/yr gasoline, 4,226 gallons/year diesel, and 5,543,466 gallons/year natural gas. EPA estimates 8.887 × 10-3 metric tons CO2/gallon of gasoline, and 5,543,466 gallons/year x 8.887 × 10-3 metric tons CO2/gallon = 49,264.78 MTCO2e. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references. 7 cont
8 9
Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 6
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] In conclusion, because the City chose the threshold that the Project’s consistency with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations, it should have thoroughly analyzed consistency with all State plans, policies, and regulations. As reflected in the previous analysis, the Affinity Project conflicts with the Pasadena CAP, CARB Scoping Plan, and EO B-55-18. Therefore, contrary to the DEIR’s conclusion of no significant impact, the GHG impact is significant.
CalEEMod Deficiencies
CalEEMod was used as a model to estimate existing project emissions to serve as the baseline for both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial from which a cumulative assessment is compared, as well as the estimation of GHG emissions for both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial. The CalEEMod analysis was included in Appendix B to the DEIR, and was inconsistent with the DEIR itself in three ways.
CalEEMod should be rerun to get a more accurate estimation of Project GHG emissions.
First, certain variables were included in the table at the beginning of each run but not as a parameter in the detailed chart. although the Table 1.0 Project Characteristics in Runs 4-6 indicate “Land Uses” to include the “Medical Office Building” and “Restaurant”, the table below showing CalEEMod inputs do not mention the two metrics of 151,000 square feet from the medical office and 3,000 square feet from the restaurant, even though it includes the metrics from the three other proposed buildings on the site. The land use parameter should accurately reflect the usage of land from all of the buildings, not just some of them. Similarly, for runs 6-9 the Table 1.0 Project Characteristics Indicates “Land Uses” to include “Restaurant,” “Apartments,” and “Condo,” but in the table of parameters below, in the three metrics of 93,000 square feet, 197,000 square feet, and 3,000 square feet are notably missing from the list of parameters.
Second, the DEIR water metrics as stated in the DEIR do not align with the CalEEMod inputs. The DEIR estimates to use 34,636,310 gallons per year for the Project, or 32,123,285 gallons per year for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial (See Appendix I, p. 5-5 and 5-6)
4. However, the inputs in the CalEEMod parameters were changed from the defaults to be much larger than what is reflected in the DEIR. The various water inputs of the Project’s CalEEMod specifications indicates a total of 18,205,470 gallons per year for the Project, and 18,147,070 gallons per year for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial, both of which are much lower than demonstrated by the DEIR (Appendix B p. 123 and )
5. 4 Total water usage for the Project according to the DEIR on p. 5-5 is 94,894 gallons per day. 94,894 gallons per day x 365 days per year = 34,636,310 gallons per year. Total water usage for the Project with Building A Residential Commercial on p. 5-6 is 88,009 gallons per day x 365 days per year = 32,123,285 gallons per year. 5 Total water usage for the Project according to CalEEMod parameters on p. 123 of Appendix B add up to 18,205,470 gallons per year (2,609,750 + 1,635,700 + 5,835,620 + 7,716,100 + 102,200 + 102,200 + 102,200 + 9 cont
10 Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 7
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Third, the GHG intensity scores of 802 lbs/MWh for carbon dioxide, 0 lbs/MWh for methane, and 0 lbs/MWh for nitrous oxide as listed in the CalEEMod parameters cannot be reconciled with the overall GHG Intensity of 971 lbs/MWh on the 2020 Pasadena Power Content Label, despite being the only source listed for those numbers. Pasadena Water and Power releases an annual emissions report by gas type, and for 2020 the accurate carbon dioxide intensity is 822.65 lbs/MWh, methane intensity is 1.77 lbs/MWh, and nitrous oxide intensity is 3.78 lbs/MWh (Pasadena Water and Power Annual Emissions Report by Gas Type)
6. The
CalEEMod parameters should be edited to reflect that Pasadena has greater than zero methane and nitrous oxide emissions produced from energy usage, and the carbon dioxide intensity parameter should be increased to reflect the true carbon dioxide intensity of 822 lbs/MWh.
Alternatives
CEQA requires an EIR to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives” to “avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (14 CFR §15126.6). An adequate discussion of alternatives should include renovation of the six existing buildings rather than demolition. Building retrofit and renovation rather than demolition can lower GHG emissions for nearly all buildings (Preservation Green Lab7). Further, renovated buildings have the greatest short-term GHG savings because they have fewer materials inputs (Preservation Green Lab8). The City did not account for the GHG impact of choosing to demolish the
102,200 = 18,205,470 gallons per year). Total water usage for the Project with Building A Residential/Commercial according to CalEEMod parameters on p. 233 of Appendix B add up to 18,147,070 gallons per year (2,122,475 + 7,555,500 + 2,122,475 + 5,835,620 + 102,200 + 102,200 + 102,200 + 102,200 + 102,200 = 18,147,070 gallons per year).
6 From the Pasadena Water and Power Annual Emissions Report by Gas Type. 365,282 MT CO2e for CO2/978,917 MWh x 2204.62 lbs/MT = 822 lbs/MWh. 785 MT CO2e for CH4/978,917 MWh x 2204.62 lbs/MT = 1.77 lbs/MWh. 1,677 MT CO2e for NOx/978,917 MWh x 2204.62 lbs/MT = 3.78 bls/MWh.
Emissions by Gas Type (MT CO2e) Total Retail Sales (MWh)
7 .$/$.2 0(,+.$$+ !8
'$.$$+$/01()#(+&1 +0(%5(+&0'$+2(.,+*$+0 )
)1$,%1()#(+&
$1/$9
-“
$' !()(0 0(,+ +#.$0.,%(0/0()),10-$.%,.*+$3",+/0.1"0(,+5($)#(+&%$3$.(*- "0/ ,2$.
5$ .)(%$/- +/$$(&1.$/ 7
'(/(/0.1$%,. ))(*- "0" 0$&,.($/ +#!1()#(+&05-$/$4"$-0 0'$3 .$',1/$0,*1)0(% *()5",+2$./(,+" /$/01#59https://living-future.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf
8 .$/$.2 0(,+.$$+ !8
'$.$$+$/01()#(+&1 +0(%5(+&0'$+2(.,+*$+0 )
)1$,%1()#(+&
$1/$9
-
“+- .0("1) ..$+,2 0$#!1()#(+&/3(0'%$3$.* 0$.( )(+-10/' 2$0'$-,0$+0( )0, .$ )(6$0'$&.$ 0$/0/',.00$.*" .!,+/ 2(+&/9https://living-future.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf
10 cont
11 Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 8
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] buildings rather than utilize the materials in the new project or retrofit for new purposes. Had the EIR found a significant impact, which it should have, in consideration of the points in previous sections of this comment letter, it would need to discuss reasonable alternatives including, but not limited to, renovation of the six buildings rather than the proposed demolition.
Transportation
The traffic analysis concluded no significance for all transportation metrics even though two metrics for both alternatives were above the stated CAP significance thresholds. In Table 4 of Appendix G-1 of the DEIR, two metrics were reported above the existing “Significant Impact Cap.” For the Project, the incremental change of “Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network” was recorded as 32.0, above the threshold of 31.7, and the “Proximity and Quality of Transit Network was recorded as 66.8, above the threshold of 66.6, as shown below. These two metrics do not fall underneath the existing significant impact cap, and therefore the report should have indicated “yes,” under the corresponding row under the significant impact column of Table 4.
In Table 4 of Appendix G-2 of the DEIR, two metrics were reported above the existing “Significant Impact Cap.” For the Project with Building Residential/Commercial, the incremental change of “Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network” was recorded as 32.0, above the threshold of 31.7, and the “Proximity and Quality of Transit Network was recorded as 66.8, above the threshold of 66.6, as shown below. These two metrics do not fall underneath the existing significant impact cap, and therefore the report should have indicated “yes,” under the corresponding row under the significant impact column of Table 4. 11 cont
12 Comment Letter to City of Pasadena Page 9
Affinity Project May 2, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected]
Instead of identifying the areas of significant impact, the report concludes that both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial do not exceed any of the CEQA thresholds of significance. Not only is this misleading to the decision-makers, but the conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. The EIR should reflect that there is a significant impact for two of the transportation performance metrics for both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Conclusion
For the reasons given in this letter, the city should update the DEIR to remedy the defects we have identified. Notably, the City should have concluded that the Affinity Project would contribute to a significant GHG impact because it is not consistent with an applicable plan. Therefore, the EIR is required to include all feasible mitigation to reduce the GHG impact to less-than-significant levels, as required by CEQA.
Also, please add Advocates for the Environment to your list of interested parties so that we may be notified of further action regarding the Affinity Project.
Sincerely,
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment
12 cont
13 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000 Pasadena, CA 91101 T: (626) 351-2000 F: (626) 351-2030
MEMORANDUM
July 6, 2022
To: From:
Jason Van Patten
City of Pasadena
Planning and Community Development Department
Jillian Neary
Tin Cheung
Subject: Response to Comments Received After End of Draft EIR Public Review Period (2 of 2)
The following presents responses to comments on the Affinity Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted to the City of Pasadena Planning Commission by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), in a letter dated June 8, 2022 (Attachment A). Lozeau Drury LLP previously submitted comments on the Draft EIR on behalf of SAFER in a letter dated March 2, 2022 (Attachment B), and these comments have been responded to in the Final EIR. SAFER is an organization associated with the Southern California District Council of Laborers, a chartered council of the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA). The letter focuses on air quality, including indoor air quality, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emiss ions. The comment letter includes unsubstantiated statements regarding the adequacy of the air quality and GHG emissions modeling and that the indoor air quality of the proposed buildings would result in a health risk. It should be noted that the South Coa st Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the agency with jurisdiction over the issues identified in the SAFER letter, received the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) and the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD did not provide comments on the Project as a result of review of the IS/NOP or Draft EIR, and as such did not raise questions about the methodology and assumptions used in the quantification of emissions.
The 45- day public comment period for the Affinity Draft EIR closed on March 3, 2022. There is no requirement in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the City of Pasadena (City) respond to comments submitted after the close of the 45 -day CEQA comment period. However, in the interest of full disclosure and public participation, the City responds herein. This comment letter and its exhibits have been divided into sequential numbered comments and are attached, and corresponding City of Pasadena responses are provided below. It is noted that in all instances, except where noted, “Project” refers to both the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial.
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (via Lozeau Drury LLP) June 8, 2022
Response 1. As addressed in Responses 9 through 20 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Draft EIR “fails as an information document” and “fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures”.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted and a Recirculated EIR is not necessary.
Response 2. The comment provides the names of the preparers of Exhibits A and B to the comment letter and is acknowledged.
Response 3. The comment provides a summary of the Project and is acknowledged.
Response 4. The comment presents the legal background asserted by the commenter as related to the Draft EIR and comments provided thereon and is acknowledged.
Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
Response 5. As addressed in Responses 9 through 17 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Draft EIR’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses are based on unsubstantiated and/or inaccurate data and that the Project may therefore result in significant air quality and GHG emissions. Based on the thorough analysis conducted, there would be less than significant impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions; and no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response 6. As addressed in Response 20 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion that operation of the Project would expose people to a significant health risk related to indoor air quality from formaldehyde in building materials. Even if the assertions regarding the health risk of future residents and visitors to the Project had merit, this does not represent an impact of the Project on the environment and as such is not relevant to the CEQA process. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response 7. As addressed in Responses 9 through 20 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Draft EIR “is wholly inadequate” and no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted . There is no factual basis provided in the SAFER comment letter upon which the Planning Commission should refrain from recommending certification of the EIR or recommending approval of the Project. Regardless, the comment is noted for the administrative record and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and consideration.
Comment Letter Exhibit A (SWAPE)
The following are responses to comments provided by Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) for the Project and provided as Exhibit A to the SAFER comment letter.
Response 8. As addressed in Responses 9 through 19 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Draft EIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG emissions is inadequate and that mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts are required. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response 9. The commenter is correct in that CalEEMod provides default model inputs that can be used if more accurate or project -specific information is not available. The default model inputs were developed based on a set of information that may or may not be representative of any given project. As such, the SCAQMD allows users to modify these computer model inputs if there is better available data that is more representative of any given project and, in fact, it is the industry standard to modify the inputs to match the specifics of the project being evaluated, more accurately.
The commenter lists a number of these modified inputs as examples of unsubstantiated inputs. The comment states that the architectural coating phase length is unsubstantiated. That is incorrect.
The CalEEMod default assumption was that the entire Project site would be painted in 10 days. The default model inputs assumes that the following surface areas would be painted:
1. 373,361 square feet of interior residential uses
2. 124,454 square feet of exterior residential uses
3. 231,000 square feet of interior nonresidential uses
4. 77,000 square feet of exterior nonresidential uses
This results in a total surface area of 805,815 square feet to be painted, which has a n average of 80,582 square feet of surface area painted every day. To provide context as to the magnitude of that rate of painting, Appendix A of the CalEEMod Manual states that “The program assumes the total surface for painting Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
equals 2.7 times the floor square footage for residential ...” For a hypothetical 2,000-square-foot residence, there would be 5,400 square feet of painted surface area. The rate of painting of 80,582 square feet per day, assumed as a default rate of painting in CalEEMod, is equivalent to painting approximately 15 houses per day every day or painting over 1 house per hour . As such, t he assumption that the entirety of the Project would be painted in 10 days is clearly unreasonable. Consequently, information from the data request submitted to the Applicant related to anticipated construction phase durations was used. The data request that was developed specifically for this Project anticipated that it would take 2 months or 53 days (at a rate of 6 days/week) for the application of architectural coatings. The use of 53 days for the architectural coating phase would still require 15,204 square feet of surfaces to be painted per day , which is still a substantial rate of painting and equivalent to painting 3 houses per day. As such, the change from the model’s default of 10 days of painting to 53 days for the totality of the Project is substantiated by information provided by the Applicant, warranted, and remains a conservative estimate of potential paint -related volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.
Response 10. The comment mentions that the methane (CH4), carbon dioxide ( CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O) intensity factors related to GHG emission rates for Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) were unsubstantiated. Collectively, these intensit y factors can be referred to as GHG intensity factors , which represent the amount of emissions that are produced from the generation of electricity that would be supplied to the Project. The emissions resulting from electricity generation are a mixture of fossil fuel and nonpolluting renewable energy sources. To minimize the State of California’s contribution toward climate change, California has mandated– through the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)–that electricity generators progressively include nonpolluting renewable energy sources such that electricity generation is carbon free by the year 2045. The RPS was established in 2 002 by Senate Bill (SB) 1078 with the initial requirement that 20 percent of electricity retail sales must be served by renewable resources by 2017. Under SB 350 (de León 2015), there is a mandated 50 percent RPS by 2030. SB 100 (de León 2018) was signed into law, which again increases the RPS to 60 percent by 2030 and requires all the S tate's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
The commenter states that “…simply because the State has renewable energy goals for year 2026 does not ensure that these goals will be achieved locally on the Project site or by the Project’s specific utility company. As such, the CH
4, CO2, and N2O intensity factors should be based on currently achieved power mixes from Pasadena Water and Power (“PWP”), rather than future estimates based on statewide targets.
As a result, we cannot verify the revised values.” As mentioned previously, the State’s RPS legally requires power generators to achieve the carbon -free goal by 2045 as well as achieve the initial and interim goals established in 2017 and 2030. Therefore, the PWP complying with this requirement is a reasonable assumption. The PWP has also demonstrated continuing progress toward meeting the requirements of the RPS. This is demonstrated in the Power Integrated Resource Plan of which the PWP’s websi te explicitly states, “PWP has committed to procuring 60 percent of the power the City uses from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric by 2030. PWP achieved an RPS of 38 percent in 2017.”
1 The legally b inding requirement and PWP’s historic progress and planned purchases of renewable energy demonstrates that these goals will be achieved and forms the basis for the use of an interim GHG intensity factor for the operations phase of the Project.
The comment also mentions that the GHG intensity factor was not substantiated. It should be noted that the modeling data did substantiate the CO2 Intensity Factor, by stating that it was calculated for the year 2026 and based on the 2020 data as well as providing the source of the information. This information can be
1 Pasadena Water and Power – A Sustainable Future. Accessed 6-24 -22. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/water-and- power/sustainability/.
Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
found on pages 53- 54, 87-88, and 122 of Draft EIR Appendix B. Further, the CO2 Intensity factor from PWP was given with the following website link provided as part of the substantiation in Appendix B:
https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/water-and-power/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/08/2020-Power- Content-Label-for-Website.pdf.
The CO2 Intensity Factor that was used in the Draft EIR is 802 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/MWh) for the Project buildout year of 2026; and the CalEEMod default was 873 lbs/MWh for the year 2021. This slight reduction in rates was based on reductions anticipated to occur due to the RPS by the buildout of the Project in 2026. Use of a 2021 GHG intensity rate for the year 2026 ignores the requirement of the RPS that GHG emissions for utilities are mandated to be reduced to reach the interim targets. Additionally, the latest CalEEMod model 2 has a substantially reduced GHG CO2 intensity factor of 69 lb/MWh , which is based on the 2021 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). This emission rate has been verified by the CalEEMod development team who mentioned that the data was provided by PWP in March 20213. This information is also shown in a chart within the 2021 IRP4. This CO2 intensity factor of 69 lb/MWh for the Project buildout year of 2026 is only 9 percent of what was used in the Draft EIR . As such, use of the default data in the latest version of CalEEMod would yield a substantial reduction in GHG emissions as compared to the conservative results provided in the Draft EIR.
The commenter also mentioned “First, unbundled RECs [renewable energy certificates] are sold separately from the physical electricity and are a voluntary purchase. Thus, as the Draft EIR and associated documents fail to mention or formally require the Project to purchase unbundled RECs, we cannot verify the 8 percent reduction to the CO 2 intensity factor included in the model.” According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), a REC represents the attributes of one MWh of renewable electricity that is generated and delivered to the grid. RECs are used to track and assign ownership to renewable electricity generation and use. The term unbundled REC means the non- physical REC has been separated from the physical electricity.5 PWP has various options for meeting the requirements of the RPS. RECs are one method to achieve the RPS targets. It is irrelevant whether RECs are a voluntary purchase or not, or whether PWP obtains RECs at all. P WP, not the Applicant, is responsible for determining and implementing the means by which the RPS requirements will be achieved. As such, the Draft EIR does not need to “mention or formally require the Project to purchase unbundled RECs…” The last comment provided regarding the GHG intensity factor states “Third, the Draft EIR and associated documents fails to justify the 100 percent reductions to the CH4 and N2O intensity factors.” The commenter is correct in that adjustment to the CalEEMod modeling had i nput zeros for the CH 4 and N2O intensity factors. That was done because the CO2 intensity factor was adjusted to be CO2 equivalent. CO2 equivalents are used to provide a single simplified number which accounts for all greenhouse gases , such as CH4 and N2O, emitted by a source. Since the PWP power content label provides units in CO 2 equivalents per megawatt-hour (CO 2e/MWh), it was appropriate to change the CalEEMod input for CO 2 to a CO 2 equivalent and, subsequently, zero out the CH4 and N2O intensity factor inputs to avoid double counting such emissions.
Response 11. The comment states that the Draft EIR underestimated the number of building construction hauling trips. The comment further states that according to the Draft EIR, ‘“Building construction, including
2 CalEEMod web-based model. https://caleemod.com/
3 Email correspondence with [email protected]. June 28, 2022. 4 Pasadena Water & Power Integrated Resource Plan (Power) 2021 Update. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/water - and-power/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2022/03/2021-Power-IRP-Update-Final-Report_-CC-Adopted-1-31-
22.pdf.
5 EPA website. June 29, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/renewable-energy-certificates-recs.
Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
architectural coatings would generate a waste stream requiring an estimated 795 one- way truck trips over the course of 26.5 months (691 workdays)” (p. 2-13).’ The comment highlights that there are zero hauling trip numbers in the CalEEMod output.
Vendor trips bring building supplies to a Project site. The CalEEMod modeling output in the Draft EIR included a more conservative 6 vendor trips per day over the course of 640 workdays. This equals to 3,840 truck trips over the course of the building construction period, which greatly exceeds the 795 one-way truck trips stated in the Draft EIR. Vendor trips are composed of a 50/50 percent mix of heavy-heavy duty trucks and medium-heavy duty trucks based on the CalEEMod User’s Guide. As such, the comment that the Draft EIR had failed to sufficiently account for truck emissions associated with building construction activities is incorrect. Hauling trips associated with the building construction phase are more than accounted for in the number of ve ndor trips (3,860 trips) and in resulting emissions as vendor trips have a 50/50 heavy- heavy and medium-heavy trips, thus explaining the zero entries on the chart referenced by the comment.
Response 12. The comment mentions that the number of workers and vendor trips were not substantiated in the CalEEMod model. The worker trips and vendor trips were calculated for the building construction and architectural coating phases to replace an error within the CalEEMod model that overestimates the vehicle trips for the building construction and architectural coating phases. The default trip assumptions for these phases estimates that there would be 354 worker trips and 113 vendor truck trips for the building construction phase as well as 71 worker trips for the architectural coating phase. These are one-way trips so there would be 56 vendor trucks bringing building materials every single day for 640 workdays. That would result in a total of 35,840 truckloads of building materials over the course of the building construction phase. This magnitude of truck trips provided as a default value within CalEEMod is not reasonable and to correct this error within CalEEMod , vendor and worker were quantified based on CalEEMod guidance documents for worker and vendor trip rates provided in Appendix A of the CalEEMod Manual . If one calculates the number of worker trips and vendor trips for the building construction and architectural coating phases consistent with these published values, it differs substantially from the model defaults and provides a more reasonable estimate of trips. As such, the Draft EIR properly accounted for the number of worker and vendor trips as well as resulting emissions associated with the Project.
Response 13. The commenter mentioned that “However, while the TIA [transportation impact analysis] discusses Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT] per service population (population + jobs), or VMT per capita, the TIA fails to discuss the Project’s expected total VMT (accounting for all vehicle trips).” This statement is incorrect. The total VMT is provided within electronic page 17 of the “Transportation Impact Analysis CEQA Evaluation Category 2”. This total VMT was used to calculate the average trip length for the Project.
The commenter also mentioned that there is an unsubstantiated reduction in operational vehicle trip lengths.
It should be noted that the trip lengths’ source information–City of Pasadena–was provided within the Draft EIR. Specifically, the VMT of 21,912 was provided by the TIA. VMT is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by the trip length. Based on this equation, the trip length can be derived by the following formula: VMT divided by vehicle trips equals trip length. As such, the 21,912 VMT was divided by 6,366 trips, which is also found in the City’s traffic analysis (Appendix G -1 Transportation Impact Analysis/CEQA Evaluation for Project) that was included as part of the Draft EIR. As such, the use of the custom trip length in the air quality analysis was calculated based on data provided within the Draft EIR and is specific to the Project.
Response 14. The comment states that the Draft EIR underestimated the number of weekend vehicle trips and should have used 6,366 daily trips. This contention i s inaccurate because as shown in the comment itself, 6,367 daily trips was used for the weekdays. The CalEEMod trip totals is 1 trip higher due to Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
rounding. The use of the same 6,367 daily trips for the weekend would be inaccurate because the commenter did not consider that certain land uses have different trip rates for weekdays versus weekends. An example of this is the Project’s medical office buildings, which would typically be open weekdays and not weekends.
As such, daily trips during the weekdays would be substantially higher as compared to Saturday and Sunday. This difference in weekday and weekend trip ends is reflected in daily trip rates pr ovided in CalEEMod as part of the default trip data. This same approach was used in the calculation of Project-related weekend trips for the Draft EIR . Weekday trips are based on the daily trips for each land use provided within the City’s traffic analysis . To calculate trip rates f or the weekend, the proportion of weekday to weekend trips for each Project land use found within CalEEMod ’s default data was used. That same proportion of weekday to weekend trips was multiplied with the Project’s weekday trips for each land use.
As such, the methodology used to estimate the Project’s weekend trips is consistent with the approach taken within CalEEMod and the commenter’s assertion that the weekend trips is underestimated is inaccurate.
Response 15. This comment states that the changes in the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages from the default values used in CalEEMod are unsubstantiated. The vehicle fleet mix is the percentage of motorcycles, motorhomes, buses, light duty automobiles, medium duty trucks and heavy duty (i.e., semi) trucks that are anticipated to visit the Project. The Draft EIR modeling adjusted the vehicle fleet mix to approximate a vehicle fleet that would realistically visit the Project site. CalEEMod does not adjust the vehicle fleet mix based on the type of land use. As such, a single -family residential tract would generate the same percentage of heavy-duty trucks as a warehouse distribution center. If the default vehicle fleet mix percentages were used, the Project would generate 314 heavy duty truck trips per day. The proposed uses would not generate this magnitude of heavy- duty truck trips per day to support its operations. Instead, a conservative but more realistic assumption that 23 heavy duty trucks and 448 medium duty trucks would visit the Project site daily was used in the modeling. Because the default vehicle fleet mix percentages would not accurately represent the Project’s trips, a more reasonable vehicle fleet mix and its resulting emissions was used in the Draft EIR.
Response 16. The commenter provided their own estimate of air quality emissions based on generalized default data. In this estimate, t he only exceedance of the SCAQMD’s threshold that was identified by SWAPE is VOC emissions. All other pollutants were below the thresholds despite the comments asserting:
• Underestimation of worker and vendor trips during construction, • Underestimation of haul truck trips during construction, • Unsubstantiated Reduction to Operational Vehicle Trip Lengths, • Underestimated Number of Saturday and Sunday Vehicle Trips, and • Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages.
As such, these previous comments have no bearing on the significance finding on the level of impact within the Draft EIR and would still result in less than significant air quality impacts. For VOC emissions, these emissions are primarily due to the application of architectural coatings. Response 9, above, provides the justification for the use of a reasonable and Project-specific architectural coating duration and explains why the architectural coating phase length applied by SWAPE is not reasonable. As discussed in this response, the Draft EIR provided a Project -specific, conservative, and reasonable estimate for the number of days needed to paint the totality of the Project.
Response 17. The comment states that the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis and related impact finding is incorrect because (1) the Draft EIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
model, and (2) S WAPE’s analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. However, as demonstrated in Responses 9 through 16, above, all assertions made by SWAPE regarding the adjustments made to the default CalEEMod inputs and the GHG intensity factor applied are incorrect and unsupported.
Accordingly, the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis and conclusions are inadequate for the reasons cited above, is also incorrect and unsupported.
Response 18. As addressed in Responses 9 through 17, above, there is no evidence to support the assertion that there would be “potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further”.
There would be less than significant impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions; no changes to the air quality or GHG emissions analysis are necessary, and no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response 19. The comment provides a disclaimer regarding SWAPE’s commentary. Specifically, that the comments are based on limited data and “may contain information gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties”.
This comment is acknowledged.
Comment Letter Exhibit B (IEE)
The following are responses to comments provided by Indoor E nvironmental Engineering (IEE) for the Project and provided as Exhibit B to the SAFER comment letter.
Response 20. The comment asserts the residents and employees of the Project would be exposed to a cancer risk associated with the formaldehyde found in some building materials and poor ventilation in the buildings; and that outdoor concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) due to tailpipe emissions will exceed California and federal standards, thus warranting high efficiency air filters be installed in the buildings. Additionally, the comment asserts that traffic noise will be higher than measured at the site, thus warranting a mechanical supply of outdoor ventilation to “allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors”.
Regardless of the merit of these assertions, which is discussed further below, the air quality experienced inside the proposed buildings does not represent an impact of the Project on the environment nor an exacerbation of an existing impact. The California Supreme Court has established that, as a general matter, CEQA does not require that the effects of environmental conditions upon a project’s future residents or users be considered. Two qualifications to this general rule apply where: (1) the legislature has specifically required consideration of the effects of the environment on future residents and users of a project and (2) the Project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards. These qualifications allow that where future occupants may exacerbate existing hazardous conditions, such as those found on official maps and land use plans (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas, airports), on the site of a proposed development, they may be assessed under CEQA as a potential environmental impact of that project. The exposure to indoor air contaminants due to the building materials of the project itself or the existing PM2.5 concentrations in the area do not fall into the category of an existing hazard on a site. Accordingly, as stated above, the Project’s indoor air quality is not a legitimate environme ntal impact that is appropriate to address in the Draft EIR nor does the Project exacerbate an existing impact. Therefore, these assertions are irrelevant to the CEQA process ; and commenter’s assertions that IEE’s commentary represents a new significant environmental impact that is not addressed in the Draft EIR, thereby rendering the EIR inadequate, are unsupported by the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as well as case law ( Baird v.
County of Contra Costa, 32 Cal.App.4th 1464; California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District [S213478, December 17, 2015]).
Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
The Project would be built to meet the current California Building Code (CBC) and California Green Building Code (CALGreen) standards in effect when t he building permits are issued by the City of Pasadena. The City has adopted by reference the 2019 CBC and 2019 CALGreen code, among other codes, in Chapter 14.04 of the Pasadena Municipal Code. The 2019 CALGreen code has mandatory measures for both residential and non-residential land uses specifying formaldehyde limits for composite wood products (Sections 4.504.5 and 5.504.5 of the 2019 CALGreen code). Specifically, “Hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard composite wood products used on the interior or exterior of the building shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in ARB’s Air Toxics Control Measure for Composite Wood (17 CCR 93120 et seq.), by or before the dates specified in those sections, as shown in Table 4.504.5”. The Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) referenced in CALGreen is the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Phase 2 ATCM as referenced in the comment letter. The California Composite Wood Products Regulation (CWP Regulation), which first took effect in 2009 and requires hardwood plywood (HWPW), particleboard (PB), and medium density fiberboard (MDF) to comply with regulatory requirements (at present the Phase 2 ATCM) and to be labeled as such. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Ca lEPA) states that the CWP Regulation’s emission standards are set at low levels intended to protect public health, and that prior to the CWP Regulation’s emission standards are set at low levels intended to protect public health. 6 Further, the USEPA has
established the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products final rule pursuant to Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule requires all composite wood panels manufactured in or imported into the United States after March 22, 2019, must be TSCA Title VI compliant and the label on composite wood panels must include the panel producer’s name, lot number, an US EPA- recognized TSCA Title VI Third-Party Certifier number, and a TSCA Title VI compliance statement.7 The USEPA rule is not addressed in commenter’s letter.
The commenter’s overall assertion is that the Project will cause a significant cancer risk to future residents and employees, under the certain, specified conditions described in IEE’s letter. Specifically, on page 2 of 19 of the IEE letter, commenter states “The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).” In the remainder of the letter there is reference to a “CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million”. There is no such thing as a “CEQA cancer risk” or other quantitative health risk that is codified in CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact: (1) If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one million or greater, or (2) Toxic air contaminants from th e proposed Project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater. This comment language improperly and inaccurately conflates two entirely separate regulatory bodies.
According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to toxic air contaminant ( TAC) concentrations over a 70 -year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment method. In California, the “cancer risk” espoused in the commenter’s letter is determined by conducting a health risk assessment (HRA) pursuant to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual. A full-fledged HRA is prepared using dispersion modeling and with methodology consistent with the
6 California Environmental Protection Agency. Last accessed June 29, 2022. Reducing Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers (ca.gov). 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated April 4, 2022. Frequent Questions for Consumers about the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act | US EPA.
Jason Van Patten
July 6, 2022
Psomas
requirements of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, not solely arithmetic using unproven and convenient , hypothetical assumptions. An OEHHA-compliant HRA is far more complicated and nuanced that the narrative provided in Exhibit B. Furthermore, the OEHHA has defined only non-cancer reference exposure levels for formaldehyde; which refers for adverse health effects such as eye and respiratory irritation. The commenter’s letter is based on unsupported assumptions and faulty inferences to suggest that all persons living or working inside any building using composite wood materials will be exposed to a high risk of cancer from formaldehyde and/or poor air ventilation. No direct evidence of this assertion is provided; nor is substantial evidence provided that the CARB, CalEPA, and USEPA regulations are not adequately protective of the future population.
Regarding outdoor noise levels, it is not accurate (nor factually supported) to say that “post-pandemic sound levels will be higher”. Due to the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit used to measure noise levels, a doubling of a noise source would result in a 3 dBA increase in the noise level, which is considered barely perceptible to human hearing. While there will be more traffic than when the noise levels were taken, it is unlikely to be double. And even in this worse case event, the perceived noise level would be minimally changed, if at all. This fact was considered in the decision to take short- and long-term noise measurements during pandemic conditions as the baseline for the Project’s noise analysis. As such, there is no validity to this argument to support a specific infrastructure for air exchange in the proposed buildings.
Regarding outdoor concentrations of PM2.5, as a criter ia air quality pollutant, the air quality analysis presented in Section 3.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR quantified the regional and local emissions of PM2.5 during construction and operation of the Project. As indicated in Section 3.1, there would be le ss than significant air quality impacts from construction and operation of the Project and no mitigation is required.
As such, there is no validity to this argument to support a specific infrastructure for air exchange in the proposed buildings.
S:\3PAS012100 Affinity Project EIR\Final EIR\Late Comment Letter_SAFER\Revised LegalFilesWeb1_Safer_070622.docx Via Email
June 8, 2022
Steven Olivas, Chair
Jason Lyon, Vice Chair
David Coher, Representative
Julianna Delgado, Representative
Lambert Giessinger, Representative
Mic Hansen, Representative
Carol Hunt Hernandez, Representative
Andre
a Rawlings, Representative
Tim Wendler, Representative
Planning Commission
City of Pasadena
175
North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Jason Van Patten, Senior Planner
Planning & Community Development
Dept.
City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
[email protected]
Hayman Tam, Recording Secretary
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, Affinity Project (SCH 2021080103) (aka Planned Development #39)
Planning Commission, June 8, 2022, Agenda Item 7
Dear Chair Olivas and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”)regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Affinity Project (SCH 2021080103), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a 154,000 square foot, seven-story medical office building with ground-floor commercial uses, and a 184,376 square foot, seven-story assisted living building with 85,800 square feet of assisted living uses and 98,576 square feet of independent living uses, with five subterranean parking levels providing up to 850 parking spaces, located on an approximately 3.3 acre site between 465 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway in the City of Pasadena (“Project”).
After reviewing the FEIR, we conclude that the FEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER requests that the Planning Commission address these 1 ATTACHMENT A
June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
shortcomings in a revised environmental impact report (“REIR”) and recirculate the REIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”)(Exhibit A) and indoor air quality expert Francis “Bud”Offermann (Exhibit B). We incorporate the SWAPE and Offermann comments herein by reference.
I. Project Description.
The Project is located on an approximately 3.3-acre site located between 465 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway, bound by East Bellevue Drive on the north, South Arroyo Parkway on the east, East California Boulevard on the south, and the Metro Gold Line on the west. The Project will require demolition of six existing buildings totaling 45,912 sf and will include construction of two new buildings:
x Building A: a 154,000 sf, 7-story medical office building with ground-floor commercial uses; and
x Building B: a 184,376 sf, 7-story assisted living building with 85,800 sf of assisted living uses and 98,576 sf of independent living uses including up to 95 one- and two-bedroom senior housing units.
The Project will also include a total of five levels of subterranean parking spanning both proposed buildings. The site is currently zoned as “High Mixed-Use” in the general plan, and the Project will require rezoning from CD-6 to a Planned Development Zone.
II. Legal Background.
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”)(except in certain limited circumstances). See, e.g. Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. “The ‘foremost principle’in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif.
Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”)§ 15002(a)(1). “Itspurpose is to 2 3
4 June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protectsnot only the environment but also informed self-government.’”Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”);County of Inyo v. Yorty(1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible”by requiring “environmentally superior”alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley,5 2C a l . 3 d at 564. The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identifyways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.”CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminatedor substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible”and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptabledue to overriding concerns.”Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B). The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732.
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuseof discretion”standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncriticallyrely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’”Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12). As the court stated in Berkeley Jets:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “ifthe failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”(San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.)
More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that:
4 cont
June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences.
Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018), citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405. “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.”Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 516. Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant e f f e c t si na nE I R ,“a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”6 Cal.5th at 516, citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197. “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.”6 Cal.5th at 516. Whether a discussion of a potential impact is sufficient “presents a mixed question of law and fact. As such, it is generally subject to independent review. However, underlying factual determinations— including, for example, an agency’sdecision as to which methodologies to employ for analyzing an environmental effect— may warrant deference.”Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno,6 Cal.5th at 516. As the Court emphasized:
[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.
Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 514. We find that the FEIR prepared by the City here is inadequate for the reasons set forth below.
I. DISCUSSION
A. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts Regarding Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. 4 cont
5 June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the EIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on air quality and greenhouse gases. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit A and their comments are briefly summarized here.
1. The DEIR Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Air Quality Impacts.
SWAPE found that the EIR incorrectly estimated the Project’s constructional and operational emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s impacts on local and regional air quality. The EIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Version CalEEMod 2020.4.0 (“CalEEMod”). DEIR, p. 3.1-12. This model, which is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions, relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. Ex. A, p. 1.
CEQA requires any changes to the default values to be justified by substantial evidence. Id.
SWAPE reviewed the EIR’s CalEEModoutput files and found that several of the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the EIR. Ex. A at 2. Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the EIR’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the EIR or otherwise unjustified:
1. Unsubstantiated change to architectural coating phase length. Ex. A, p.2-4;
2. Unsubstantiated changes to CH
4, CO2, and N2O intensity factors. Ex. A, p. 4-6;
3. Underestimated number of building cons truction hauling trips. Ex. A, p. 6-7;
4. Unsubstantiated reduction to operationa l vehicle trip lengths. Ex. A, p. 7-9;
5. Underestimated number of Saturday a nd Sunday vehicle trips. Ex. A, p. 9-10;
6. Unsubstantiated changes to operational vehicle fleet mix percentages. Ex. A, p. 10-11.
Based on the issues listed above, the EIR’s analysis of air quality cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of impacts and a Revised EIR must be prepared.
2. An Updated Air Model Analys is Found that the Project Will have a Significant Air Quality Impact.
To more accurately determine the Project’s construction and operational emissions, SWAPE prepared an updated CalEEMod model using more site-specific 5 cont
June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
information and corrected input parameters. See Ex. A, p. 11. SWAPE’s updated analysis demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions increased by approximately 423% and therefore significantly exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds. Id. Thus, SWAPE’s model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the EIR. A Revised EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.
3. The EIR Failed to Adequately An alyze the Project’s
Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The EIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 3,380 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (“MT CO
2e/year”). DEIR, p. 3.4-16. The EIR also states that the Project would have a service population efficiency value of 3.52 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MTCO
2e/SP/year”) and would therefore not exceed
the City’s threshold of 3.57 MTCO2e/SP/year. Id., Table 3.4-6. However, SWAPE found that the EIR’s conclusion about a less-than-significant greenhouse gas impact is incorrect for two reasons:
(1) The EIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model.
Due to the EIR’s inputting of several inconsistent or unjustified values into its CalEEMod analysis, the EIR underestimated Project emissions. The EIR’s GHG analysis is therefore also flawed, and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of Project impacts. Ex. A, p. 12.
(2) SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.
SWAPE prepared an updated air model which resulted in CalEEMod output files indicating that the Project would generate approximately 4,873.66 MT CO
2e/year of total construction emissions and approximately 10,667.49 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions. Ex. A, p. 12. Based on this information, SWAPE calculated that the Project would have a service population efficiency value of 11.29 MT CO2e/SP/year, thus exceeding the City’s threshold. Id.
SWAPE’s analysis demonstrates potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts from the project that necessitate mitigation. A Revised EIR should be prepared which includes an air quality and GHG analysis and should propose feasible measures to mitigate any significant impacts.
5 cont
June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
B. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud”Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (June 7, 2022). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. B, p. 2-3.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that future residents of the Project would be exposed to a 17 in one million cancer risk, and commercial employees of the Project would be exposed to a 17.7 in one million risk, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id. at 4-5. This potential exposure level exceeds the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.
Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Id. at 12-13. These significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in a Revised EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure.
6 June 8, 2022
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
Affinity Project
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER believes that the EIR is wholly inadequate.
SAFER urges the Planning Commission to refrain from recommending certification of the FEIR or recommending approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address the concerns raised herein. Thank you for considering our comments and please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this project.
Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau Drury LLP
7
EXHIBITA
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
June 7, 2022
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comment s on the Affinity Project (SCH No. 2021080103) Dear Ms. Fuentes,
We have reviewed the January 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Affinity Project (“Project”) located in the City of Pasadena (“City”). The Project proposes to demolish 45,912-square-feet (“SF”) of existing buildings and construct a 154,000-SF medical office building and a 184,376-SF assisted living building, as well as 850 parking spaces, on the 3.3-acre site.
Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 3.1-12).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.
1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. 8 9
9 cont
3 “Building construction, including architectural coatings, would generate a waste stream requiring an estimated 795 one-way truck trips over the course of 26.5 months (691 workdays)” (p. 2-13).
However, the revised architectural coating phase length remains unsupported. While the DEIR indicates the duration of the combined building construction and architectural coating phases, the DEIR fails to mention or justify the individual architectural coating phase length of 10 days. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 3
Here, as the DEIR only justifies the combined total duration of the building construction and architectural coating phases, the DEIR fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised individual architectural coating phase length. As such, we cannot verify the change.
This unsubstantiated change presents an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for the architectural coating phase. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).4
Thus, by disproportionately extending the architectural coating phase length without proper justification, the model assumes a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the architectural coating phase. As such, there will be fewer construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. As a result, the model may underestimate
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14.
4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
9 cont
9 cont
10 5
However, these changes remain unsupported for three reasons.
First, unbundled RECs are sold separately from the physical electricity and are a voluntary purchase.6 Thus, as the DEIR and associated documents fail to mention or formally require the Project to purchase unbundled RECs, we cannot verify the 8% reduction to the CO2 intensity factor included in the model.
Second, simply because the State has renewable energy goals for year 2026 does not ensure that these goals will be achieved locally on the Project site or by the Project’s specific utility company. As such, the CH4, CO2, and N2O intensity factors should be based on currently achieved power mixes from Pasadena Water and Power (“PWP”), rather than future estimates based on statewide targets. As a result, we cannot verify the revised values.
Third, the DEIR and associated documents fails to justify the 100% reductions to the CH4 and N2O intensity factors. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA”.7
6 “Unbundle Electricity and Renewable Energy Certificates.” U.S. EPA, September 2020, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/lmop/unbundle-electricity-and-renewable-energy-certificates. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 12.
10 cont
11 10 cont
12 12 cont
13 8
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 12 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Trip rates per TIA and to account for increased trips from converted use (in high-turnover land use). trip length adjustments per Pasadena DOT CEQA study” (Appendix B, pp. 49, 83, 117).
Furthermore, the DEIR states:
“Operations phase trip generation and trip lengths were provided within the City’s traffic analysis, provided in Appendix G-1, Transportation Impact Analysis/CEQA Evaluation for Project, and Appendix G-2, Transportation Impact Analysis/CEQA Evaluation for Project with Building A Residential/Commercial” (p. 3.3-3).
However, these reductions remain unsupported for two reasons.
First, the above-mentioned Transportation Impact Analysis/CEQA Evaluation for Project (“TIA”), provided as Appendix G-1 to the DEIR, fails to provide trip lengths for the Project’s expected number of vehicle trips. Second, the TIA provides the following transportation performance metrics (see excerpt below) (p. 10, Table 4).
However, while the TIA discusses Vehicle Miles Traveled per service population (population + jobs), or VMT per capita, the TIA fails to discuss the Project’s expected total VMT (accounting for all vehicle trips).
Thus, we are unable to verify that the revised trip lengths included in the model are an accurate reflection of the Project’s total expected VMT.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the vendor trip numbers to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles. 13 By including an
12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
13 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 35.
13 cont
13 cont
14 14 cont
15 15 cont
16 17
17 cont
17 cont
18 18 cont
15 r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavy- duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
18 cont
18 cont
17 iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. 18 cont
18 i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. 18 cont
19 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment C: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
19 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-13-2023 6-12-2023 0.5620 0.5620
2 6-13-2023 9-12-2023 1.5285 1.5285
3 9-13-2023 12-12-2023 1.8755 1.8755
4 12-13-2023 3-12-2024 1.9716 1.9716
5 3-13-2024 6-12-2024 1.9576 1.9576
6 6-13-2024 9-12-2024 1.9547 1.9547
7 9-13-2024 12-12-2024 1.9446 1.9446
8 12-13-2024 3-12-2025 1.8376 1.8376
9 3-13-2025 6-12-2025 1.8434 1.8434
10 6-13-2025 9-12-2025 1.8405 1.8405
11 9-13-2025 9-30-2025 0.3601 0.3601
Highest 1.9716 1.9716
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 6/6/2022 11:57 AMPage 9 of 41 Affinity-Proposed - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment B
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association . Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conferenc e. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17 th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
EXHIBITB
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: June 7, 2022
To: Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Affinity Project, Pasadena, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4588)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts th e comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For ex ample, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and build ing codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air qual ity in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approx imately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.
Indoor air quality also is a serious conce rn for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain 20 2 of 19
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact . In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (O ffermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 μg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 μg is 2 μg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m 3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 μg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 μg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 μg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 μg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 μg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for ai rborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyd e is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 μg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 μg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 20 cont
3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, par ticleboard, medium dens ity fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formalde hyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products mee ting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formal dehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 μg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 μg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HE NGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to unde r-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applyi ng this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 μg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 μg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentratio n and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to the Affinity Project, Pa sadena, CA the buildings consist of commercial medical office spaces and assisted living residential spaces. 20 cont
4 of 19
The assisted living residential occupants w ill potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
Because these residences will be construc ted with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the mi nimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations ar e likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 μg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m 3 of air per day, the formaldehyde daily dose is 482 μg/day for continuous exposure in the assisted living residences. If we assume that the residents live in the assisted living residences for 10 years, even if the residents were to have zero exposure prior to moving into the assisted living residences, the 70 year lifetime exposure would be 68.9 μg/day, which represents a cancer risk of 17 per million, which is more than 1.7 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
The employees of the commerc ial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significan t cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building mate rials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.
Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 μg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 20 cont
5 of 19
m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 μg/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 μg/day.
This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 μg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
Even composite wood products manufactured w ith CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks th at substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates . Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ins ure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for deter mining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines . Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review 20 cont
6 of 19
and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-can cer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be se lected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to ach ieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyd e concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, a nd the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmenta l review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimu m outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide th e building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are define d as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculate d (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. F or each IAQ Zone, deter mine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m 2 of material/m 2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, 20 cont
7 of 19
adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea- formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate ( μg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate ( μg/m2-h) and the area (m 2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (μg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commissi on, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemi cal Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, ” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivale nt chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of buildi ng furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemi cal emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., μg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the for maldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 μg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 μg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined 20 cont
8 of 19
from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA , and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For in stance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified produc t, that report will provide the actual area- specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contam inants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of th e building material or furnishi ng can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. μg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentr ation. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration ( μg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. μg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
ൌ
ாೌ
ொೌ
(Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (μg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (μg/h) into the IAQ Zone. 20 cont
9 of 19
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concen trations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and No n-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer h ealth risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Z one, provide mitigati on for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigati on required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures belo w the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings , is the preferred mitigation option, as 20 cont
10 of 19
mitigation with increased outdoor air venti lation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Eva luation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Fo rmaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve ac ceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact . Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentr ations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24 Ǧhour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usag e were homes in the winter field session.
Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24 Ǧhour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, comb ined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
20 cont
11 of 19
The Affinity Project, Pasadena, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., South Arroyo Parkway, Ea st Bellevue Drive, East California Boulevard, South Raymond Avenue, South Fair Oaks Avenue, Long Beach Freeway, etc.), and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report – Affinity Project (Psomas, 2022), the existing noise levels range from 72 dBA CNEL along the eastern Project boundary and to 73 dBA CNEL along the southern Project boundary. Also, since these noise measurements were conducted September 9-10, 2021 during the pandemic when traffic volumes were reduced, the future post-pandemic sound levels will be higher.
As a result of the anticipated high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a vent ilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact . An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM 2.5.
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report – Affinity Project (Psomas, 2022), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non- attainment area for PM2.5.
An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM 2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the proj ect related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM 2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM25 exceedence concentration of 12 μg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 μg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor 20 cont
12 of 19
concentrations of outdoor PM 2.5 particles is less than th e California and National PM 25 annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM 2.5 will exceed the California and National PM 2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommende d mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, pa rticleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified compos ite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 pe r million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessmen t, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde em ission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and 20 cont
13 of 19
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemi cal Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (C DPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishi ng Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acce ptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provi de each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft 2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to ins ure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mecha nical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or out door air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance pers onnel, that describe s the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM 2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM 2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.
References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
20 cont
14 of 19
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Bu ilding Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commis sion (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulati ons, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Buil ding Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testi ng and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.
California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. 15 of 19
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causin g Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy ǦRelated Environmental Research Program. Co llaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson . 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12 th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.
Psomas. 2022. Draft Environmental Impact Report – Affinity Project. SCH No. 2021080103.
16 of 19
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
17 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this air borne toxic control me asure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality ”, but rather “ reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB AT CM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “ assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized . As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 μg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 pe r million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much prot ection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft 2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appe ndix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 18 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated max imum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/d ay occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, wi ndow and door trims, and kitche n and bathroom cabinetry, 19 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldeh yde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 pe r million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
Even composite wood product s manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks th at substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF co mposite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amount s of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde con taining composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capab le of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approa ch, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present.
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building.
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index.
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.
2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.
3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Mem ber of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ)
• Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012)
Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993.
Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.
Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.
Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6
th International Conference on Air
Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.
Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. 5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.
6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e- cigarettes.
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989.
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems ”, Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints 9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson , and T. J. Phillips ,
“Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications ”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann
, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann
, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann
, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
10 OTHER REPORTS:
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984.
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi- Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.
12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.
13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992.
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997.
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996.
“IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
“The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
“Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
“Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998.
“Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. 18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
“Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21 st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23 rd,
2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002.
“Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.
19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
“Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
“Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
“Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.
21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
“A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
“Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.
Via Email
March 2, 2022
Jason Van Patten, Senior Planner
Planning & Community Development Dept.
City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Affinity Project (SCH 2021080103)
Dear Mr. Van Patten:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the Affinity Project (SCH 2021080103), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a 154,000 square foot, seven-story medical office building with ground-floor commercial uses, and a 184,376 square foot, seven-story assisted living building with 85,800 square feet of assisted living uses and 98,576 square feet of independent living uses, with five subterranean parking levels providing up to 850 parking spaces, located on an approximately 3.3 acre site between 465 and 577 South Arroyo Parkway in the City of Pasadena (“Project”).
After reviewing the DEIR, we conclude that the DEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER requests that the Planning and Community Development Department address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report (“RDEIR”) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.
We reserve the right to supplement these comments during review of the Final EIR for the Project and at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).
Sincerely,
Richard Drury
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT H
PROJECT PLANS
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/planning/planned-development-39-affinity-project/