SWAPE 6 Rosenfeld CV
Provided expert opinions, reports an d research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites’ boundaries.
Client: MCP Polyurethane (Pittsburg, Kansas)
Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties.
Risk Assessment And Modeling
Client: ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino, California)
Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-a rt enclosed compost facility. Developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8, and 24-hour off-s ite concentrations of sulfur, ammonia, and amine as well as prepared a traffic analysis.
Client: Jefferson PRP Group (Los Angeles, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents an d hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middl e School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District.
Client: Covanta (Susanville California)
Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer.
Client: CIWMB (Sacramento California)
Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Client: Carboquimeca (Bogotá, Columbia)
Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client fo cusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents contaminating groundwater used for drinking water.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes. Negotiated action levels with DTSC.
Client: San Diego State University (San Diego California) Measured CO
2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario with a child resident and a construction worker’s exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation, incidental soil ingestion, and dermal contact with soil.
SWAPE 7 Rosenfeld CV
Client: MCAS Miramar (San Diego, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil, compar ing site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway s cenarios assuming child resi dent and construction worker exposure to particulate and vapor inhalation, soil ingestion, and dermal soil contact.
Client: Naval Weapons Station (Seal Beach, California) Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals, PCBs, dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk.
Client: King County, Douglas County (Washington State) Measured PM
10 and PM 2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations.
Client: King County, Seattle, Washington.
Conducted emission inventory for several compost and wa stewater facilities comparing VOC, particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities.
Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation
Client: Republic Landfill (Santa Clarita, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity.
Client: California Biomass (Victorville, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution- to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources, character and intensity.
Client: ABT-Haskell (Redlands, California)
Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers, base scrubbers, biofilters, heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Synagro (Corona, California)
Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control from an industrial composting facility in Corona, California, reducing VOC emissions by 99 percent.
Client: Jeff Gage, (Tacoma, Washington)
Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk.
SWAPE 8 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Daishowa America (Port Angeles Mill, Washington) Analyzed industrial pa per sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals an d nutrients to develop a land application program. Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates.
Client: Jeff Gage (Puyallup Washington)
Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and ran EPA di spersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics.
Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation Client: Confidential (Downey, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop.
Client: Confidential (West Hollywood, California)
Designed soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning.
Client: Synagro Technologies (Sacramento, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids app lication impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlori nated solvent, hydrocarb on and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island. Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP, RI/FS, and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation.
Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment.
Client: MCP (Walnut, California)
Conducted forensic surface water and sediment sampling. Designed and conducted bench scale laboratory experiments. Demonstrated that metal and organic contaminants in storm water and sedime nt from landfill flooded and chemically compromised a polyurethane track.
Client: Mission Cleaning Facility (Salinas California) Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen re leasing compound (ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas.
SWAPE 9 Rosenfeld CV
Client: King County, Washingon
Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control.
Client: City of Redmond (Richmond, Washington)
Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matte r-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction.
Client: City of Seattle (Seattle, Washington)
Measured VOC emissions from Renton wa stewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize, quantify, control and estimate risk from VOCs.
Client: Plumas County (Quincy, California)
Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1% copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes re sulting from hydraulic mining. Insta lled and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading.
Client: Adams Egg Farm (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digester s at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea. Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas.
Client: BLM (Kremmling Colorado)
Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river, protecting water quality by digging and repairing latrines.
Soil Science and Restoration Projects
Client: Kinder Morgan (San Diego County California)
Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline. Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, nativ e grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards.
Client: NAVY BRAC (Orote Landfill, Guam)
Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species’ root-penetration into landfill cap. Plants were used to evapotranspirate water, reducing water leaching through soil profile.
Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles. Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off.
SWAPE 10 Rosenfeld CV
Client: City of Escondido (Escondido California)
Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido, California.
Client: Home Depot (Encinitas, California)
Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coas tal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas, California.
Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant (San Diego, California) Planned, installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California.
Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation (Clatskanie Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-a cre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on ge netically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable.
Client: World Wildlife Fund (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest. Collaborated with skilled botanists, ornithologists and herpetologists.
Publications
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. (2011). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):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 Treat ment 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’, in Brebbi a, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII:
SWAPE 11 Rosenfeld CV
Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution, Tallinn, Estonia. 20-22 July, 2009, Southampton, Boston. WIT Press.
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, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.
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 Com pounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, P. E. Rosenfeld (2007) “Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility” Environmental Research. 105, pp 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J . J . J . C l a r k , A . R . H e n s l e y , M . S u f f e t . ( 2 0 0 7 ) “ T h e U s e o f a n O d o r W h e e l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r 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,” Elsevier Publishing, Boston Massachusetts.
Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel” Water Science and Technology, In Press.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities.” Water Science And Technology, In Press.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin C ontaining Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facil ity.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel.” (2004). 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. Vol. 49, No. 9. pp 193-199.
SWAPE 12 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004) Measuremen t of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76 (4): 310-315 JUL-AUG 2004.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida. June 2 and June 6, 2003.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. “Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash.” Biocycle, March 2002, Page 42.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). “Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento, California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Od or at a Green Materials Composting Facility Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publicatio ns Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento , CA Publication #44 2-02-008. April 2002.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution. Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4, pp. 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: 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: 388-392.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. Volume 131 No. 1-4, pp. 247-262 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. Bellevue Washington.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, Vol. 3 No. 2.
P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas P roject to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993.
SWAPE 13 Rosenfeld CV
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St. Kitts. Surf Report, April issue.
P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Smal l Diameter Trees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
England Environmental Agency, 2002 . Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury BRISTOL, BS32 4UD Presentations
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. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Dr inking Water." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wa ller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) “Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airport s in the United States” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) “Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Fo ams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility” Platform Presentation at the 23
rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contam inated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant” Platform Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
SWAPE 14 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Somerville Community Ex posure To Contaminants F rom Wood Treatment Facility Emissions” Poster Presentation at the 23 rd Annual International Confe rences on Soils Sedime nt and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. “Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP )” – Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007
Rosenfeld P. E. “Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama” – Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin C ontaining Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former W ood Treatment Facility.” APHA 134 An nual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts. November 4 to 8th, 2006.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” Mealey’s C8/PFOA Science, Risk & Litigation Conference” October 24, 25. The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater : Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP.” PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs.” Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. September 26, 27. Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA an d Related Chemicals.” International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals”. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water An d Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005.
Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater : Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation.” 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference.
May 5-6, 2004. Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
SWAPE 15 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presen tation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th, 2004. Pheonix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium.
California Ground Water Association. Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. April 7, 2004.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Histor ical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. February 20-21, 2003. Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigati on and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott Hotel. Anaheim California. February 6-7, 2003.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Re mediation. EPA Unde rground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California. October 23, 2002
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understa nding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flav ors in the Aquatic Environment. Inter national Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting Fo r Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Vancouver Washington. September 22-24.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland.
November 11-14.
Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation.
Anaheim California. September 16, 2000.
Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000 . Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California
Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000 . Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Sacramento California.
SWAPE 16 Rosenfeld CV
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. Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 1999. An evaluation of ash in corporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. 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, Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan, 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, Anaheim California.
Professional History
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to present; Lecturer (Asst Res) 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 Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
SWAPE 17 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 2010) Teach Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including un dergrad, medical doctors, public hea lth professionals and nurses. Course focuses 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 transpor t 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.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest : $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
SWAPE 18 Rosenfeld CV
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993.
ȱ
Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
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
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
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
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153
rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
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
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delawa re corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
SWAPE 19 Rosenfeld CV
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelh elm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo, et al. Plaintiffs Vs. California Spray Company, et al. Defendants Case No CV 146344
In the District Court of Texas 21
st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ATTACHMENT 2
Via Email
April 13, 2022
Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440)
Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RIS/MND”) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”).
SAFER submitted comments on the original Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) on October 1, 2021. SAFER’s October comment was prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Based on these expert reviews, we concluded that the IS/MND failed as an informational document, and that there was a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
The City prepared and published a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to adopt the RIS/MND on February 9, 2022. According to the NOI, the City recirculated the IS/MND for the proposed Project to clarify changes that have risen during or since the public review period. After reviewing the RIS/MND, we also conclude the RIS/MND also fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request once more that the City prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to CEQA, PRC section 21000, et seq.
This supplemental comment on the RIS/MND has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm SWAPE. Mr.
Offerman’s comment on the original IS/MND and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood’s comment is attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE’s comment and the consultants’ curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. SAFER’s October 1, 2021 comments on the original IS/MND are attached as Exhibit D hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
DISCUSSION
I. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the RIS/MND and relevant documents regarding the proposed Project’s indoor air emissions, and concluded that his Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A) regarding the IS/MND, submitted by SAFER on October 1, 2021, still apply to the RIS/MND. Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial/industrial 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 A.
Even after receipt of SAFER and Mr. Offerman’s October 1, 2021 comments on the IS/MND, which identified the Project’s significant health risk impact from its indoor air emissions from formaldehyde, the RIS/MND does not evaluate the human health risks as a result of the Project’s formaldehyde emissions. As SAFER’s previous comments noted, the failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.
II. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife.
After review of the RIS/MND, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood’s site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood’s behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments on the IS/MND and curriculum vitae are included as Exhibit A in SAFER’s October 1, 2021 comments attached hereto as Exhibit D. Dr.
Smallwood’s expert comments on the RIS/MND are included at Exhibit B.
A. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the RIS/MND is still woefully inadequate.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood’s review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special-status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.
Dr. Smallwood asserts that the RIS/MND does an “only” “slightly better job of characterizing baseline conditions of the site,” because it includes lists of species that were detected during the City’s only reconnaissance-level survey that the IS/MND originally omitted. (Ex. B, p. 1.) According to Dr. Smallwood: “what was not improved, and what warranted an improvement, was a follow-up survey (or multiple surveys) at an appropriate time of day for wildlife.” (Ex. B, p. 1.) Dr. Smallwood further explains:
The RIS/MND ignores Noriko’s survey results and what they mean to the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the likelihoods of special-status species occurrences. The RIS/MND misleadingly reports, “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey.” This reporting is misleading not only because it ignores the special-status species that Noriko detected, but also attempts to pass off the AECOM survey effort as sufficient for detecting special- status species. It was not. No reconnaissance-level survey effort is capable of detecting all the species that use a site, including those that use it seasons and times of day other than when the reconnaissance-level survey was performed.
Furthermore, no biologist is perfect at detecting the species of wildlife that are available to be detected at the time of the survey. For these reasons, to characterize the wildlife community at a site, multiple methods and multiple surveys are needed. (Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
Hence, RIS/MND’s baseline for biological impacts continues to be inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site. (See, Ex. B, pp. 1-5.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that: “A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately assess occurrence likelihoods of special-status species as part of the characterization of the current environmental setting.” (Ex. B, p. 6.)
In conclusion, the RIS/MND’s failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project.
B. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity.
Neither the original IS/MND nor the RIS/MND assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. Instead, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s comments regarding habitat loss to breeding birds. (Ex. B, p. 6.) Specifically, Dr. Smallwood’s prediction that the proposed Project “would deny Californian’s of 116 birds per year.” (Ex. B, p. 6.) This potential loss of birds every year following construction of the Project easily qualifies as a significant, unmitigated impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact.
C. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife movement.
The RIS/MND, like the IS/MND, fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) In doing so, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s “comments regarding wildlife movement and how, in its analysis, the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard centered on whether the site is part of a wildlife movement corridor.” (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.) As Dr. Smallwood points out, “[t]he CEQA standard does not rely on whether the site is part of a corridor.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) Therefore, the RIS/MND improperly dismisses the Project’s potential to significantly impact wildlife movement. Such impacts to wildlife movement from the Project’s construction and operation should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly.
D. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions.
Dr. Smallwood’s comments conclude that the Project will have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. (See, Ex. B, p. 7.) But neither the IS/MND nor the RIS/MND express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special-status bird species. Rather, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s comments regarding bird-window collision mortality, which he “predicted would be 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329).” (Ex. B, p. 7.) As Dr. Smallwood points out, “this level of mortality would qualify as a
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
significant, unmitigated impact.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) Thus, an EIR needs to be prepared to appropriately analyze the impacts of bird-window collisions, and mitigate accordingly.
E. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project.
Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. (Ex.
B, p. 7.) Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because “traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife” across North America. (Ex. D, p. 17 [citing Forman et al. 2003].) In the United States alone, estimates for “avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year.” (Ex. D, p. 17 [citing Loss et al. 2014].) The RIS/MND ignores Dr.
Smallwood’s comments regarding mortality caused by project-generated traffic. Dr. Smallwood predicted that “the Project’s traffic would cause 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) The original IS/MND also failed to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project. However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, “this level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity as a result of vehicle-wildlife collisions, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation.
F. The RIS/MND fails to adequately address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on wildlife.
The RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood’s comments regarding cumulative impacts on wildlife from the Project. (Ex. B, p. 7.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments argue that the IS/MND and RIS/MND both fail to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by applying “a false CEQA standard for determining whether the project would contribute cumulatively to impacts to wildlife.” (Ex. B, p. 7.) However, the RIS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. The IS/MND also misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on wildlife.
G. The pre-construction and burrowing owl surveys identified in the RIS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site.
Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigations identified in the RIS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-3), and burrowing owl surveys (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-2). (Ex. B, p. 7.) Although Dr. Smallwood agrees with the need for burrowing owls surveys and pre- construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site; he notes that burrowing owl surveys and pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project’s anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds, including burrowing owls, and bats. (Ex. B, p. 7.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
The RIS/MND splits the original mitigation measure BIO-1 into two measures, BIO-1 and BIO-3, but doing so did not address any of the issues I raised in my comment letter of 26 September 2021. Whereas I concur these preconstruction surveys should be performed, I again point out that only small fractions of the surveys’ targets would be found and salvaged before the site’s habitat is destroyed. The habitat of bats and birds would be permanently destroyed, thereby decreasing the numerical capacities of birds and bats in the area. Habitat elsewhere is already occupied, and would be incapable of absorbing birds and bats displaced from this project. (Ex. B, p. 7.)
In discussing Mitigation Measure BIO-2 regarding burrowing owl surveys, Dr.
Smallwood states that he:
…concur[s] with the implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, but this needs to happen prior to the circulation of an EIR. The surveys need to inform the public and the decision-makers of the project’s potential impacts to burrowing owls and whether and to what degree those impacts can be mitigated. (Ex. B, p.
7.)
By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird’s and bat’s reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within sixty days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the RIS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project’s potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats. Furthermore, burrowing owl surveys need to be conducted prior to construction and included and circulated in EIR.
Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. (Ex. B, pp. 5-6.) In addition to detection surveys and pre-construction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of pre-construction surveys will be reported, while burrowing owl surveys should be performed prior to and circulated in that EIR. (Ex. B, p. 7.)
III. The RIS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.
The RIS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. (RIS/MND, pp. 4-9; Ex. C, pp. 1-2.) This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
provided in the RIS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Ex. C, p.
2.) SWAPE’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C. The particular errors identified by SWAPE in the RIS/MND include the following:
1. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size. (Ex. C, pp. 2-3.)
2. Underestimated Parking Land Use Size. (Ex. C, pp. 3-4.)
3. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors. (Ex.
C, pp. 4-5.)
4. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values. (Ex. C, pp. 5-6.)
5. Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages. (Ex. C, pp. 6-8.)
6. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates. (Ex. C, pp. 8-9.)
7. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values. (Ex. C, pp. 9-
10.)
8. Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation. (Ex. C, pp. 10-12.)
9. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures. (Ex. C, pp. 12-14.)
Because the RIS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions. These errors should be corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project.
IV. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gasses and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects:
aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.
The RIS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a proper quantified operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). (Ex. C, pp. 14-17.) Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the RIS/MND’s justification is that “operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations” because the Project “does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.” (RIS/MND, p. 4-15.)
However, SWAPE’s review of the RIS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the RIS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified operational HRA. (Ex. C, pp. 14-17.) SWAPE concluded that the RIS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health impacts, as well as the less-than- significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. C, pp. 15-17.)
First, the RIS/M ND’s construction-related HRA fails to account for the third trimester of pregnancy or infant receptors, as required by OEHHA guidance. (Ex. C, p. 15 [citing “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf,] p. 2-5.) By not accounting for the first two age groups, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA is not “protective of children.” (Id.) In addition, SWAPE states that “because parameters for child and adult receptors are less than the parameters for the third trimester of pregnancy and infant receptors, such as Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASFs”), the RIS/MND’s calculated carcinogenic risks are underestimated. (Ex. C, p. 15.)
Second, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA utilizes an incorrect Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) value of 0.72 for the child receptor. (Ex. C, pp. 15-16 [citing RIS/MND, p. 4- 15, Table 4.3-4].) In accordance with SCAQMD guidance, the HRA should have used a FAH of 1 for the child receptor. (Ex. C, p. 16.) Thus, in utilizing an incorrect FAH value, the RIS/MND’s construction HRA underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction. (Ex. C, p. 16.)
Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex. C, p. 16.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Ex. C, p. 16 [citing RIS/MND, p. 4-10].) Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex.
C, p. 16; see also, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.)
Fourth, the RIS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. (See, “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.) OEHHA recommends
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Ex. C, p. 16.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Ex.
C, p. 16.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. (Ex. C, p. 16.) An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. (Ex. C, p. 16.)
Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without evaluating the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together, SWAPE found that the RIS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. C, p. 17.) Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an updated assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should be conducted.
V. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.
Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. C., pp. 17-20.) SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. (Ex. C., pp. 17-20.)
SWAPE found that the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 89.59 in one million. (Ex. C., pp. 19-20.) The risks to lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. C., pp. 17-19.)
SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants.
VI. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO
2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (RIS/MND, p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1.) Furthermore, the RIS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
than-significant GHG impact. (RIS/MND, pp. 4-37–4-39. However, SWAPE concludes that the RIS/MND’s GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. C, pp. 20-23.)
First, as SWAPE points out, the RIS/MND’s GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. (Ex. C, p. 21.) As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the RIS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Second, the RIS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project’s GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. (Ex. C, p. 21.)
Third and Fourth, SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. (Ex. C, pp. 21-23.) As such, SWAPE recommends that an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines, to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. (Ex. C, pp. 21-23.)
SWAPE’s analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. To reduce the Project’s emissions, SWAPE also recommends consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”). (Ex. C., pp. 23-29.) In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis.
VII. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact.
Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project’s noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the RIS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts. (See, Ex. D, pp. 30-31.)
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND
April 13, 2022
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the RIS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Ann Yundt
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
EXHIBITA
,1'225(19,5210(17$/(1*,1((5,1*
3LQH6WUHHW6XLWH6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD
7HOHSKRQH
(PDLO
RIIHUPDQQ#,((6)FRP
KWWS
ZZZLHHVIFRP
'DWH
6HSWHPEHU
7R
9LFWRULD$<XQGW
/R]HDX_'UXU\//3
+DUULVRQ6WUHHW6XLWH
2DNODQG&DOLIRUQLD
)URP
)UDQFLV-2IIHUPDQQ3(&,+
6XEMHFW
,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\
$OWD&XYHH0L[HG8VH3URMHFW5DQF KR&XFDPRQJD&$
,(()LOH5HIHUHQFH
3
3D
JHV
,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\,PSDFWV
,QGRRUDLUTXDOLW\
,$4
GLUHFWO\LPSDFWVWKHFRPIRUWDQGKHDOWKRIEXLOGLQJRFFXSDQWVDQG WKHDFKLHYHPHQWRIDFFHSWDEOH,$4LQQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDQGUHQRYDWHGEXLOGLQJVLVDZHOO UHFRJQL]HGGHVLJQREMHFWLYH)RUH[DPSOH,$4LVDGGUHVVHGE\P DMRUKLJKSHUIRUPDQFH EXLOGLQJUDWLQJV\VWHPVDQGEXLOGLQJFRGHV
&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ 6WDQGDUGV&RPPLVVLRQ
86*%&
,QGRRUDLUTXDOLW\LQKRPHVLVSDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQWEHFDXVH RFFXSDQWVRQDYHUDJHVSHQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\QLQHW\SHUFHQWRIWKHLUWLPHLQGRRUVZLWKWKH PDMRULW\RIWKLVWLPHVSHQWDWKRPH
(3$
6RPHVHJPHQWVRIWKHSRSXODWLRQWKDWDUH
PRVWVXVFHSWLEOHWRWKHHIIHFWVRISRRU,$4VXFKDVWKHYHU\\RXQJDQGWKHHOGHUO\RFFXS\ WKHLUKRPHVDOPRVWFRQWLQXRXVO\$GGLWLRQDOO\DQLQFUHDVLQJQXPEHURIDGXOWVDUHZRUNLQJ IURPKRPHDWOHDVWVRPHRIWKHWLPHGXULQJWKHZRUNZHHN,QGRRU DLUTXDOLW\DOVRLVD VHULRXVFRQFHUQIRUZRUNHUVLQKRWHOVRIILFHVDQGRWKHUEXVLQHVVHVWDEOLVKPHQWV 7KHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIPDQ\DLUSROOXWDQWVRIWHQDUHHOHYDWHGLQKRPHVDQGRWKHUEXLOGLQJV UHODWLYHWRRXWGRRUDLUEHFDXVHPDQ\RIWKHPDWHULDOVDQGSURGX FWVXVHGLQGRRUVFRQWDLQ DQGUHOHDVHDYDULHW\RISROOXWDQWVWRDLU
+RGJVRQHWDO
2IIHUPDQQDQG+RGJVRQ
RI
:LWKUHVSHFWWRLQGRRUDLUFRQWDPLQDQWVIRUZKLFKLQKDODWLRQLVWKHSULPDU\URXWHRI H[SRVXUHWKHFULWLFDOGHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQSDUDPHWHUVDUHW KHSURYLVLRQRIDGHTXDWH YHQWLODWLRQDQGWKHUHGXFWLRQRILQGRRUVRXUFHVRIWKHFRQWDPLQDQWV
,QGRRU )RUPDOGHK\GH &RQFHQWUDWLRQV ,PSDFW,QWKH&DOLIRUQLD1HZ+RPH6WXG\
&1+6
RIQHZKRPHVLQ&DOLIRUQLD
2IIHUPDQQ
DLUFRQWDPLQDQWVZHUH
PHDVXUHGDQGIRUPDOGHK\GHZDVLGHQWLILHGDVWKHLQGRRUDLUFRQWDPLQDQWZLWKWKHKLJKHVW FDQFHUULVNDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD3URSRVLWLRQ6DIH +DUERU/HYHOV 2(++$
D
1R6LJQLILFDQW5LVN/HYHOV
165/
IRUFDUFLQRJHQV7KH165/LVWKHGDLO\LQWDNH
OHYHOFDOFXODWHGWRUHVXOWLQRQHH[FHVVFDVHRIFDQFHULQDQH[SRVHGSRSXODWLRQRI
LHWHQLQRQHPLOOLRQFDQFHUULVN
DQGIRUIRUPDOGHK\GHLV JGD\7KH165/
FRQFHQWUDWLRQRIIRUPDOGHK\GHWKDWUHSUHVHQWVDGDLO\GRVHRIJLVJP DVVXPLQJD
FRQWLQXRXVKRXU H[SRVXUH DWRWDO GDLO\LQKDOHG DLUYROXPH RI P DQG DEVRUSWLRQE\ WKHUHVSLUDWRU\ V\VWHP $OO RI WKH &1+6 KRPHV H[FHHGHG WKLV165/ FRQFHQWUDWLRQRIJP7KHPHGLDQLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQZDVJP DQGUDQJHGIURPWRJP ZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGVWRDPHGLDQH[FHHGDQFHRIWKH JP165/FRQFHQWUDWLRQRIDQGDUDQJHRIWR
7KHUHIRUHWKHFDQFHUULVNRIDUHVLGHQWOLYLQJLQD&DOLIRUQLDKRPHZLWKWKHPHGLDQLQGRRU IRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQRIJP LVSHUPLOOLRQDVDUHVXOWRIIRUPDOGHK\GH DORQH7KH&(4$VLJQLILFDQFHWKUHVKROGIRUDLUERUQHFDQFHUULV NLVSHUPLOOLRQDV HVWDEOLVKHGE\WKHSouthȱCoastȱAirȱQualityȱManagementȱDistrictȱ(SCAQMD,ȱ2015).ȱ
%HVLGHVEHLQJDKXPDQFDUFLQRJHQIRUPDOGHK\GHLVDOVRDSRWHQW H\HDQGUHVSLUDWRU\ LUULWDQW,QWKH&1+6PDQ\KRPHVH[FHHGHGWKHQRQFDQFHUUHIHU HQFHH[SRVXUHOHYHOV
5(/V
SUHVFULEHGE\&DOLIRUQLD2IILFHRI(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK +D]DUG$VVHVVPHQW
2(++$E
7KHSHUFHQWDJHRIKRPHVH[FHHGLQJWKH5(/VUDQJHGIURP IRUWKH
&KURQLF5(/RI
JPWRIRUWKH$FXWH5(/RIJP
7KHSULPDU\VRXUFHRIIRUPDOGHK\GHLQGRRUVLVFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVPDQXIDFWXUHG ZLWK XUHDIRUPDOGHK\GH UHVLQV VXFK DV SO\ZRRG PHGLXP GHQVLW\ILEHUERDUG DQG
RI
SDUWLFOHERDUG7KHVHPDWHULDOVDUHFRPPRQO\XVHGLQEXLOGLQJFR QVWUXFWLRQIRUIORRULQJ FDELQHWU\EDVHERDUGVZLQGRZVKDGHVLQWHULRUGRRUVDQGZLQGRZDQGGRRUWULPV
,Q-DQXDU\
WKH&DOLIRUQLD$LU5HVRXUFHV%RDUG
&$5%
DGRS WHGDQDLUERUQHWR[LFV
FRQWURO PHDVXUH
$7&0
WR UHGXFH IRUPDOGHK\GH HPLVVLRQV IURP FRPSRVLWH ZRRG SURGXFWVLQFOXGLQJKDUGZRRGSO\ZRRGSDUWLFOHERDUGPHGLXPGHQVLW\ILEHUERDUGDQGDOVR IXUQLWXUHDQGRWKHUILQLVKHGSURGXFWVPDGHZLWKWKHVHZRRGSURGXFWV &DOLIRUQLD$LU
5HVRXUFHV%RDUG
:KLOHWKLVIRUPDOGHK\GH$7&0KDVUHVXOWHGLQUHGXFHGHPLVVLRQV IURPFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVVROGLQ&DOLIRUQLDWKH\GRQRWSU HFOXGHWKDWKRPHVEXLOW ZLWKFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVPHHWLQJWKH&$5%$7&0ZLOOKDYHLQ GRRUIRUPDOGHK\GH FRQFHQWUDWLRQVEHORZFDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHUH[SRVXUHJXLGHOLQHV
$IROORZXSVWXG\WRWKH&DOLIRUQLD1HZ+RPH6WXG\
&1+6
ZDVFRQGXFWHGLQ
6LQJHUHWDO
DQGIRXQGWKDWWKHPHGLDQLQGRRUIRUPDO GHK\GHLQQHZKRPHVEXLOW DIWHU
ZLWK &$5% 3KDVH )RUPDOGHK\GH $7&0 PDWHULDOV KDG ORZHU LQGRRU IRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZLWKDPHGLDQLQGRRUFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIJP
SSE
DVFRPSDUHGWRDPHGLDQRIJPIRXQGLQWKH&1+68QOLNHLQWKH&1+6VWXG\ ZKHUHIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVZHUHPHDVXUHGZLWKSXPSHG'13 +VDPSOHUVWKH IRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVLQWKH+(1*+VWXG\ZHUHPHDVXUHGZLWKSDVVLYHVDPSOHUV ZKLFKZHUHHVWLPDWHGWRXQGHUPHDVXUHWKHWUXHLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK \GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVE\ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ $SSO\LQJ WKLV FRUUHFWLRQ WR WKH +(1*+ LQGRRU IRUPDOGHK\GH FRQFHQWUDWLRQVUHVXOWVLQDPHGLDQLQGRRUFRQFHQWUDWLRQRIJP ZKLFKLVORZHU
WKDQWKHJPIRXQGLQWKH&1+6
7KXVZKLOHQHZKRPHVEXLOWDIWHUWKH
&$5%IRUPDOGHK\GH$7&0KDYHDORZHU
PHGLDQLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQDQGFDQFHUULVNWKHPHGLDQOLIHWLPHFDQFHUULVN LVVWLOOSHUPLOOLRQIRUKRPHVEXLOWZLWK&$5%FRPSOLDQWFR PSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWV 7KLVPHGLDQOLIHWLPHFDQFHUULVNLVPRUHWKDQWLPHVWKH2(++$LQDPLOOLRQFDQFHU ULVNWKUHVKROG
2(++$D
:LWKUHVSHFWWRWKH$OWD&XYHH0L[HG8VH3URMHFW5DQFKR&XFDPRQJD&$WKHEXLOGLQJV FRQVLVWRIUHVLGHQWLDODQGFRPPHUFLDOVSDFHV
RI
7KHUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQWVZLOOSRWHQWLDOO\KDYHFRQWLQXRXVH[SRVXUH HJKRXUVSHUGD\
ZHHNVSHU\HDU
7KHVHH[SRVXUHVDUHDQWLFLSDWHGWRUHVXOWLQVLJQLILFDQWFDQFHUULVNV UHVXOWLQJIURPH[SRVXUHVWRIRUPDOGHK\GHUHOHDVHGE\WKHEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVDQGIXUQLVKLQJ FRPPRQO\IRXQGLQUHVLGHQWLDOFRQVWUXFWLRQ
%HFDXVHWKHVHUHVLGHQFHVZLOOEHFRQVWUXFWHGZLWK&$5%3KDVH)RUPDOGHK\GH$7&0 PDWHULDOVDQGEHYHQWLODWHGZLWKWKHPLQLPXPFRGHUHTXLUHGDPR XQWRIRXWGRRUDLUWKH LQGRRUUHVLGHQWLDOIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVDUHOLNHO\VLPLO DUWRWKRVHFRQFHQWUDWLRQV REVHUYHGLQUHVLGHQFHVEXLOWZLWK&$5%3KDVH)RUPDOGHK\GH$7& 0PDWHULDOVZKLFK LVDPHGLDQRIJP
6LQJHUHWDO
$VVXPLQJWKDWWKHUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQWVLQKDOHP
RIDLUSHUGD\WKHDYHUDJH\HDU
OLIHWLPHIRUPDOGHK\GHGDLO\GRVHLVJGD\IRUFRQWLQXRXVH[SRVXUHLQWKHUHVLGHQFHV 7KLVH[SRVXUHUHSUHVHQWVDFDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQZKLFKLVPRUHWKDQWLPHVWKH &(4$FDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQ)RURFFXSDQWVWKDWGRQRWKDYHFRQWLQXRXVH[SRVXUH WKHFDQFHUULVNZLOOEHSURSRUWLRQDOO\OHVVEXWVWLOOVXEVWDQWLDOO\RYHUWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVN RISHUPLOOLRQ
HJIRUKRXUGD\RFFXSDQF\PRUHWKDQWLPHVWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVN RISHUPLOOLRQ
7KHHPSOR\HHVRIWKHFRPPHUFLDOVSDFHVDUHH[SHFWHGWRH[SHULHQ FHVLJQLILFDQWLQGRRU H[SRVXUHV
HJKRXUVSHUZHHNZHHNVSHU\HDU
7KHVHH[SRVXUHVIRUHPSOR\HHVDUH
DQWLFLSDWHGWRUHVXOWLQVLJQLILFDQWFDQFHUULVNVUHVXOWLQJIUR PH[SRVXUHVWRIRUPDOGHK\GH UHOHDVHGE\WKHEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVDQGIXUQLVKLQJFRPPRQO\IRXQGLQRIILFHVZDUHKRXVHV UHVLGHQFHVDQGKRWHOV
%HFDXVHWKHFRPPHUFLDOVSDFHVZLOOEHFRQVWUXFWHGZLWK&$5%3KD VH)RUPDOGHK\GH $7&0PDWHULDOVDQGEHYHQWLODWHGZLWKWKHPLQLPXPFRGHUHTXLUH GDPRXQWRIRXWGRRU DLUWKHLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVDUHOLNHO\VLPLODU WRWKRVHFRQFHQWUDWLRQV REVHUYHGLQUHVLGHQFHVEXLOWZLWK&$5%3KDVH)RUPDOGHK\GH$7& 0PDWHULDOVZKLFK LVDPHGLDQRIJP
6LQJHUHWDO
RI
$VVXPLQJWKDWWKHHPSOR\HHVRIFRPPHUFLDOVSDFHVZRUNKRXUVSHUGD\DQGLQKDOHP RIDLUSHUGD\WKHIRUPDOGHK\GHGRVHSHUZRUNGD\DWWKHRIILFHVLVJGD\
$VVXPLQJWKDWWKHVHHPSOR\HHVZRUNGD\VSHUZHHNDQGZHHNVSHU\HDUIRU\HDUV
VWDUWDWDJHDQGUHWLUHDWDJH
WKHDYHUDJH\HDUOLIHWLPHIRUPDOGHK\GHGDLO\GRVH
LV
JGD\
7KLVLVWLPHVWKH165/
2(++$D
RIJGD\DQGUHS UHVHQWVDFDQFHUULVN
RISHUPLOOLRQZKLFKH[FHHGVWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVNRIS HUPLOOLRQ7KLVLPSDFW VKRXOGEHDQDO\]HGLQDQHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWUHSRUW
³(,5´
D QGWKHDJHQF\VKRXOG
LPSRVHDOOIHDVLEOHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVWRUHGXFHWKLVLPSDFW6HYHUDOIHDVLEOHPLWLJDWLRQ PHDVXUHVDUHGLVFXVVHGEHORZDQGWKHVHDQGRWKHUPHDVXUHVVKRXOGEHDQDO\]HGLQDQ(,5
$SSHQGL[$,QGRRU)RUPDOGHK\GH&RQFHQWUDWLRQVDQGWKH&$5%)RUPDOGHK\GH$7&0 SURYLGHVDQDO\VHVWKDWVKRZXWLOL]DWLRQRI&$5%3KDVH)RUPDOGHK\GH$7&0PDWHULDOV ZLOOQRWHQVXUHDFFHSWDEOHFDQFHUULVNVZLWKUHVSHFWWRIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVIURP FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWV
(YHQFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVPDQXIDFWXUHGZLWK&$5%FHUWLILHGX OWUDORZHPLWWLQJ IRUPDOGHK\GH
8/()
UHVLQVGRQRWLQVXUHWKDWWKHLQGRRUDLUZL OOKDYHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI IRUPDOGHK\GHWKHPHHWWKH2(++$FDQFHUULVNVWKDWVXEVWDQWLDOO\ H[FHHGSHUPLOOLRQ 7KHSHUPLVVLEOHHPLVVLRQUDWHVIRU8/()FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVDUHRQO\ORZHU WKDQWKH&$5%3KDVHHPLVVLRQUDWHV2QO\XVHRIFRPSRVLWHZRR GSURGXFWVPDGHZLWK QRDGGHGIRUPDOGHK\GHUHVLQV
1$)
VXFKDVUHVLQVPDGHIURPVR \SRO\YLQ\ODFHWDWHRU PHWK\OHQHGLLVRF\DQDWHFDQLQVXUHWKDWWKH2(++$FDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQLVPHW
7KHIROORZLQJGHVFULEHVDPHWKRGWKDWVKRXOGEHXVHGSULRUWR FRQVWUXFWLRQLQWKH HQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU&(4$IRUGHWHUPLQLQJZKHWKHUWKHLQ GRRUFRQFHQWUDWLRQV UHVXOWLQJIURPWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVRIVSHFLILFEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJV VHOHFWHGH[FHHGFDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHUJXLGHOLQHV6XFKDGHVLJQ DQDO\VHVFDQEHXVHGWR LGHQWLI\WKRVHPDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJVSULRUWRWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH&LW\¶V&(4$UHYLHZDQG SURMHFW DSSURYDO WKDW KDYH IRUPDOGHK\GH HPLVVLRQ UDWHV WKDW FRQWULEXWH WR LQGRRU
RI
FRQFHQWUDWLRQVWKDWH[FHHGFDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHUJXLGHOLQHVVR WKDWDOWHUQDWLYHORZHU HPLWWLQJ PDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJV PD\ EH VHOHFWHG DQGRU KLJKHU PLQLPXP RXWGRRU DLU YHQWLODWLRQ UDWHV FDQ EH LQFUHDVHG WR DFKLHYH DFFHSWDEOH LQGRRU FRQFHQWUDWLRQV DQG LQFRUSRUDWHGDVPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVIRUWKLVSURMHFW
3UH&RQVWUXFWLRQ%XLOGLQJ0DWHULDO)XUQLVKLQJ)RUPDOGHK\GH(PLVVLRQV$VVHVVPHQW
7KLVIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVDVVHVVPHQWVKRXOGEHXVHGLQWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZXQGHU &(4$WRDVVHVVWKHLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVIURPWKH SURSRVHGORDGLQJRI EXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJV WKH DUHDVSHFLILF IRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQ UDWH GDWD IRU EXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJVDQGWKHGHVLJQPLQLPXPRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHV7KLV DVVHVVPHQWDOORZVWKHDSSOLFDQW
DQGWKH&LW\
WRGHWHUPLQHEH IRUHWKHFRQFOXVLRQRIWKH
HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ SURFHVV DQG WKH EXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOVIXUQLVKL Q J V D U H V S H F L I L H G SXUFKDVHGDQGLQVWDOOHGLIWKHWRWDOFKHPLFDOHPLVVLRQVZLOOH[FHHGFDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHU JXLGHOLQHVDQGLIVRDOORZIRUFKDQJHVLQWKHVHOHFWLRQRIVSHFLILFPDWHULDOIXUQLVKLQJV DQGRUWKHGHVLJQPLQLPXPRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQVUDWHVVXFKWKDWFDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHU JXLGHOLQHVDUHQRWH[FHHGHG
'HILQH,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\=RQHV'LYLGHWKHEXLOGLQJLQWRVHSDUDWHLQGRRUDLUTXDOLW\ ]RQHV
,$4=RQHV
,$4=RQHVDUHGHILQHGDVDUHDVRIZHOOPL[H GDLU7KXVHDFK YHQWLODWLRQV\VWHPZLWKUHFLUFXODWLQJDLULVFRQVLGHUHGDVLQJOH]RQHDQGHDFKURRPRU JURXSRIURRPVZKHUHDLULVQRWUHFLUFXODWHG
HJRXWGRRUDLU
LVFRQVLGHUHGDVHSDUDWH
]RQH)RU,$4=RQHVZLWKWKHVDPHFRQVWUXFWLRQPDWHULDOIXUQLVKLQJVDQGGHVLJQPLQLPXP RXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHV
HJKRWHOURRPVDSDUWPHQWVF RQGRPLQLXPVHWF
WKH
IRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWHVQHHGRQO\EHDVVHVVHGIRUDVLQJOH,$4=RQHRIWKDWW\SH
&DOFXODWH0DWHULDO)XUQLVKLQJ/RDGLQJ)RUHDFK,$4=RQHG HWHUPLQHWKHEXLOGLQJ PDWHULDODQGIXUQLVKLQJORDGLQJV
HJPRIPDWHULDOPIORRUDUHDXQLWVRIIXUQLVKLQJVP IORRUDUHD
IURPDQLQYHQWRU\RIDOOSRWHQWLDOLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK \GHVRXUFHVLQFOXGLQJ IORRULQJ FHLOLQJ WLOHV IXUQLVKLQJV ILQLVKHV LQVXODWLRQ VHDODQWV DGKHVLYHV DQG DQ\ SURGXFWVFRQVWUXFWHGZLWKFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVFRQWDLQLQJXUHDIRUPDOGHK\GHUHVLQV
HJSO\ZRRGPHGLXPGHQVLW\ILEHUERDUGSDUWLFOHERDUG
RI
&DOFXODWHWKH)RUPDOGHK\GH(PLVVLRQ5DWH)RUHDFKEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOFDOFXODWHWKH IRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
JK
IURPWKHSURGXFWRIWKHDUHD VSHFLILFIRUPDOGHK\GH
HPLVVLRQUDWH
JPK
DQGWKHDUHD
P
RIPDWHULDOLQWKH,$4=RQHDQGIURPHDFK
IXUQLVKLQJ
HJFKDLUVGHVNVHWF
IURPWKHXQLWVSHFLILFIR UPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
JXQLWK
DQGWKHQXPEHURIXQLWVLQWKH,$4=RQH
127(
$VDUHVXOWRIWKHKLJKSHUIRUPDQFHEXLOGLQJUDWLQJV\VWH PVDQGEXLOGLQJFRGHV
&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RPPLVVLRQ
86*%&
PRVWPDQXIDFWXUHUVRI
EXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJVVROGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVFRQGXF WFKHPLFDOHPLVVLRQUDWH WHVWVXVLQJWKH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI+HDOWK³6WDQGDUG0HWKR GIRUWKH7HVWLQJDQG (YDOXDWLRQ RI 9RODWLOH 2UJDQLF &KHPLFDO (PLVVLRQV IRU ,QGRRU 6RXUFHV 8VLQJ (QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV´
&'3+
RURWKHUHTXLYDOHQWFKHP LFDOHPLVVLRQUDWH
WHVWLQJPHWKRGV0RVWPDQXIDFWXUHUVRIEXLOGLQJIXUQLVKLQJVVR OGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV FRQGXFWFKHPLFDOHPLVVLRQUDWHWHVWVXVLQJ$16,%,)0$06WDQGDUG7HVW0HWKRGIRU 'HWHUPLQLQJ92&(PLVVLRQV
%,)0$
RURWKHUHTXLYDOHQWFKHPLFDOHPLVVLRQUDWH
WHVWLQJPHWKRGV
&'3+%,)0$DQGRWKHUFKHPLFDOHPLVVLRQUDWHWHVWLQJSURJUDPVW\SLFDOO\FHUWLI\WKDWD PDWHULDORUIXUQLVKLQJGRHVQRWFUHDWHLQGRRUFKHPLFDOFRQFHQWU DWLRQVLQH[FHVVRIWKH PD[LPXPFRQFHQWUDWLRQVSHUPLWWHGE\WKHLUFHUWLILFDWLRQ)RULQVWDQFHWKH&'3+HPLVVLRQ UDWHWHVWLQJUHTXLUHVWKDWWKHPHDVXUHGHPLVVLRQUDWHVZKHQLQSXWLQWRDQRIILFHVFKRRORU UHVLGHQWLDOPRGHOGRQRWH[FHHGRQHKDOIRIWKH2(++$&KURQLF( [SRVXUH*XLGHOLQHV
2(++$E
IRUWKHVSHFLILF92&VLQFOXGLQJIRUPDOGHK\GHOLVWHGLQ7DEOHRI WKH&'3+WHVWPHWKRG
&'3+
7KHVHFHUWLILFDWLRQVWKHPVHOYHVGRQRWSURYLGHWKH
DFWXDODUHDVSHFLILFIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
LHJP
K
RIWKHSURGXFWEXWUDWKHU
SURYLGHGDWDWKDWWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWHVGRQRWH[FHHGWKHPD[LPXPUDWHDOORZHG IRUWKHFHUWLILFDWLRQ7KXVIRUH[DPSOHWKHGDWDIRUDFHUWLI LFDWLRQRIDVSHFLILFW\SHRI IORRULQJPD\EHXVHGWRFDOFXODWHWKDWWKHDUHDVSHFLILFHPLVVL RQUDWHRIIRUPDOGHK\GHLV OHVVWKDQJPKEXWQRWWKHDFWXDOPHDVXUHGVSHFLILFHPLVVLRQUDWHZKLFKPD\EH RU JPK 7KHVH DUHDVSHFLILF HPLVVLRQ UDWHVGHWHUPLQHGIURP WKH SURGXFW FHUWLILFDWLRQVRI&'3+%,)$DQGRWKHUFHUWLILFDWLRQSURJUDPV FDQEHXVHGDVDQLQLWLDO HVWLPDWHRIWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
RI
,IWKHDFWXDODUHDVSHFLILFHPLVVLRQUDWHVRIDEXLOGLQJPDWHULDORUIXUQLVKLQJLVQHHGHG LH
WKHLQLWLDOHPLVVLRQUDWHVHVWLPDWHVIURPWKHSURGXFWFHUWLILFDWLRQVDUHKLJKHUWKDQGHVLUHG
WKHQWKDWGDWDFDQEHDFTXLUHGE\UHTXHVWLQJIURPWKHPDQXIDFWXUHUWKHFRPSOHWHFKHPLFDO HPLVVLRQUDWHWHVWUHSRUW)RULQVWDQFHLIWKHFRPSOHWH&'3+HP LVVLRQWHVWUHSRUWLV UHTXHVWHGIRUD&'+3FHUWLILHGSURGXFWWKDWUHSRUWZLOOSURYLG HWKHDFWXDODUHDVSHFLILF HPLVVLRQUDWHVIRUQRWRQO\WKHVSHFLILF92&VLQFOXGLQJIRUPDOGHK\GHOLVWHGLQ7DEOH RI WKH &'3+ WHVW PHWKRG
&'3+
EXW DOVR DOO RI WKH FDQFHU DQG
UHSURGXFWLYHGHYHORSPHQWDOFKHPLFDOVOLVWHGLQWKH&DOLIRUQLD3URSRVLWLRQ6DIH+DUERU /HYHOV
2(++$D
DOORIWKHWR[LFDLUFRQWDPLQDQWV
7$&V
LQWK H&DOLIRUQLD$LU
5HVRXUFHV%RDUG7R[LF$LU&RQWDPLQDWLRQ/LVW
&$5%
DQGWKHFKHPLFDOVZLWK
WKHJUHDWHVWHPLVVLRQUDWHV
$OWHUQDWLYHO\DVDPSOHRIWKHEXLOGLQJPDWHULDORUIXUQLVKLQJFDQEHVXEPLWWHGWRD FKHPLFDO HPLVVLRQ UDWH WHVWLQJ ODERUDWRU\ VXFK DV %HUNHOH\ $QDO\WLFDO /DERUDWRU\
KWWSV
EHUNHOH\DQDO\WLFDOFRP
WRPHDVXUHWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
&DOFXODWHWKH7RWDO)RUPDOGHK\GH(PLVVLRQ5DWH)RUHDFK,$ 4=RQHFDOFXODWHWKH WRWDOIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
LHJK
IURPWKHLQGLYLGXD OIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQ
UDWHVIURPHDFKRIWKHEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOIXUQLVKLQJVDVGHWHUPLQHGLQ6WHS
&DOFXODWHWKH,QGRRU)RUPDOGHK\GH&RQFHQWUDWLRQ)RUHDFK, $4=RQHFDOFXODWHWKH LQGRRU IRUPDOGHK\GH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ
JP
IURP (TXDWLRQ E\ GLYLGLQJ WKH WRWDO
IRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWHV
LHJK
DVGHWHUPLQHGLQ6WHS E\WKHGHVLJQPLQLPXP
RXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWH
PK
IRUWKH,$4=RQH
ൌ
ாೌ
ொೌ
(TXDWLRQ
ZKHUH
&LQ LQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQ
JP
(WRWDO WRWDOIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWH
JK
LQWRWKH,$4=RQH
4RD GHVLJQPLQLPXPRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHWRWKH,$4=RQH PK
7KHDERYH(TXDWLRQLVEDVHGXSRQPDVVEDODQFHWKHRU\DQGLV UHIHUHQFHGLQ6HFWLRQ
RI
³&DOFXODWLRQRI(VWLPDWHG%XLOGLQJ&RQFHQWUDWLRQV´RIWKH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQW RI+HDOWK³6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH7HVWLQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&KHPLFDO (PLVVLRQVIRU,QGRRU6RXUFHV8VLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV´ &'3+
&DOFXODWHWKH,QGRRU([SRVXUH&DQFHUDQG1RQ&DQFHU+HDOWK 5LVNV)RUHDFK,$4 =RQHFDOFXODWHWKHFDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHUKHDOWKULVNVIURPWKH LQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GH FRQFHQWUDWLRQVGHWHUPLQHGLQ6WHSDQGDVGHVFULEHGLQWKH2(++$$LU7R[LFV+RW6SRWV 3URJUDP5LVN$VVHVVPHQW*XLGHOLQHV
*XLGDQFH0DQXDOIRU3UHSDUD WLRQRI+HDOWK5LVN
$VVHVVPHQWV
2(++$
0LWLJDWH,QGRRU)RUPDOGHK\GH([SRVXUHVRIH[FHHGLQJWKH&(4$&DQFHUDQGRU1RQ &DQFHU+HDOWK5LVNV,QHDFK,$4=RQHSURYLGHPLWLJDWLRQIRUDQ\IRUPDOGHK\GHH[SRVXUH ULVNDVGHWHUPLQHGLQ6WHSWKDWH[FHHGVWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVN RISHUPLOOLRQRUWKH &(4$QRQFDQFHU+D]DUG4XRWLHQWRI
3URYLGHWKHVRXUFHDQGRUYHQWLODWLRQPLWLJDWLRQUHTXLUHGLQDO O,$4=RQHVWRUHGXFHWKH KHDOWKULVNVRIWKHFKHPLFDOH[SRVXUHVEHORZWKH&(4$FDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHUKHDOWKULVNV
6RXUFHPLWLJDWLRQIRUIRUPDOGHK\GHPD\LQFOXGH
UHGXFLQJWKHDPRXQWPDWHULDOVDQGRUIXUQLVKLQJVWKDWHPLWIRUPDOGHK\GH
VXEVWLWXWLQJDGLIIHUHQWPDWHULDOZLWKDORZHUDUHDVSHFLILFHP LVVLRQUDWHRI IRUPDOGHK\GH
9HQWLODWLRQ PLWLJDWLRQ IRU IRUPDOGHK\GH HPLWWHG IURP EXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOV DQGRU IXUQLVKLQJVPD\LQFOXGH
LQFUHDVLQJWKHGHVLJQPLQLPXPRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHWRWKH,$4=RQH
127(
0LWLJDWLQJWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVWKURXJKXVHRIOHVVPDWHULDOIXUQLVKLQJVRU XVHRIORZHUHPLWWLQJPDWHULDOVIXUQLVKLQJVLVWKHSUHIHUUHGPLWLJDWLRQRSWLRQDVPLWLJDWLRQ ZLWKLQFUHDVHGRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQLQFUHDVHVLQLWLDODQGRSHUDWLQJFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK WKHKHDWLQJFRROLQJV\VWHPV
RI
)XUWKHUZHDUHQRWDVNLQJWKDWWKHEXLOGHU³VSHFXODWH´RQZKDW DQGKRZPXFKFRPSRVLWH PDWHULDOVEHXVHGEXWUDWKHUDWWKHGHVLJQVWDJHWRVHOHFWFRPSRVLWHZRRGPDWHULDOVEDVHG RQ WKH IRUPDOGHK\GH HPLVVLRQ UDWHV WKDW PDQXIDFWXUHUV URXWLQHO\ FRQGXFW XVLQJ WKH &DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI+HDOWK³6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH7HVWLQ JDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI 9RODWLOH 2UJDQLF &KHPLFDO (PLVVLRQV IRU ,QGRRU 6RXUFHV 8VLQJ (QYLURQPHQWDO &KDPEHUV´
&'3+
DQGXVHWKHSURFHGXUHGHVFULEHGHDUOLH UDERYH
LH3UH
&RQVWUXFWLRQ %XLOGLQJ 0DWHULDO)XUQLVKLQJ )RUPDOGHK\GH (PLVVLRQV $VVHVVPHQW WR
LQVXUHWKDWWKHPDWHULDOVVHOHFWHGDFKLHYHDFFHSWDEOHFDQFHUULVNVIURPPDWHULDORIIJDVVLQJ RIIRUPDOGHK\GH
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
,Q
WKH&1+6ILHOGVWXG\RIWKHKRPHVGLGQRWXVHWKHLUZLQGRZVGXULQJWKHǦKRXU7HVW 'D\DQGRIWKHKRPHVGLGQRWXVHWKHLUZLQGRZVGXULQJWKH HQWLUHSUHFHGLQJZHHN 0RVWRIWKHKRPHVZLWKQRZLQGRZXVDJHZHUHKRPHVLQWKHZLQWHU ILHOGVHVVLRQ7KXVD VXEVWDQWLDOSHUFHQWDJHRIKRPHRZQHUVQHYHURSHQWKHLUZLQGRZV HVSHFLDOO\LQWKHZLQWHU VHDVRQ7KHPHGLDQǦKRXUPHDVXUHPHQWZDVDLUFKDQJHVSHUKRXU DFK
ZLWKDUDQJH
RI
DFKWRDFK$WRWDORIRIWKHKRPHVKDGRXWGRRUDLUH[FKDQJHUDWHVEHORZ WKHPLQLPXP&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH
UHTXLUHPHQWRIDFK7KXVWKHUHODWLYHO\
WLJKWHQYHORSHFRQVWUXFWLRQFRPELQHGZLWKWKHIDFWWKDWPDQ\S HRSOHQHYHURSHQWKHLU ZLQGRZVIRUYHQWLODWLRQUHVXOWVLQKRPHVZLWKORZRXWGRRUDLU H[FKDQJHUDWHVDQGKLJKHU LQGRRUDLUFRQWDPLQDQWFRQFHQWUDWLRQV
7KH$OWD&XYHH0L[HG8VH3URMHFW5DQFKR&XFDPRQJD&$LVFORVHWRURDGVZLWKPRGHUDWH WRKLJKWUDIILF
HJ,)RRWKLOO%RXOHYDUG(WLZDQGD$YHQXHHWF
DQGWKXVWKH3URMHFW
VLWHLVOLNHO\DVRXQGLPSDFWHGVLWH
RI
$FFRUGLQJWRWKH,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ $OWD&XYHH0L[HG8VH 3URMHFW
$(&20
WKHH[LVWLQJDPELHQWQRLVHOHYHOVLQ7DEOHUDQJHIURP WRG%$/HT
7KHUH ZHUH QR PRGHOHG IXWXUH QRLVH OHYHOV LQ WKH ,QLWLDO 6WXG\0LWLJDWHG 1HJDWLYH 'HFODUDWLRQ$OWD&XYHH0L[HG8VH3URMHFW
$(&20
$QDFRXVWLFVWXG\RIWKH
H[LVWLQJDQGSURMHFWHGIXWXUHQRLVHOHYHOVQHHGVWREHFRQGXFWHGWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHDPELHQW QRLVHOHYHOV/GQDQGSUHSDUHWKHQHFHVVDU\SURMHFWPLWLJDWLRQ:HQRWHWKDW3URMHFW¶VFORVH SUR[LPLW\WRURDGVZLWKPRGHUDWHWRKLJKWUDIILF
HJ,) RRWKLOO%RXOHYDUG(WLZDQGD
$YHQXHHWF
PDNHWKLV3URMHFWVLWHDVLJQLILFDQWO\VRXQGLPSDFWHGVLWH
$VDUHVXOWRIWKHKLJKRXWGRRUQRLVHOHYHOVWKHFXUUHQWSURMH FWZLOOUHTXLUHDPHFKDQLFDO VXSSO\RIRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQWRDOORZIRUDKDELWDEOHLQWH ULRUHQYLURQPHQWZLWKFORVHG ZLQGRZVDQGGRRUV6XFKDYHQWLODWLRQV\VWHPZRXOGDOORZZLQGRZVDQGGRRUVWREHNHSW FORVHGDWWKHRFFXSDQW¶VGLVFUHWLRQWRFRQWUROH[WHULRUQRLVHZLWKLQEXLOGLQJLQWHULRUV
30 2XWGRRU&RQFHQWUDWLRQV,PSDFW$QDGGLWLRQDOLPSDFWRIWKHQHDUE\PRWRUYHKLFOH WUDIILFDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKLVSURMHFWDUHWKHRXWGRRUFRQFHQWUD WLRQVRI30$FFRUGLQJWR WKH6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ$OWD&XYHH0L[HG8VH 3URMHFW $(&20
WKH3URMHFWLVORFDWHGLQWKH6RXWK&RDVW$LU%DVLQZKLFKLVD6WDWHDQG)HGHUDOQRQ DWWDLQPHQWDUHDIRU30
$QDLUTXDOLW\DQDO\VHVVKRXOGWREHFRQGXFWHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI30 LQ
WKHRXWGRRUDQGLQGRRUDLUWKDWSHRSOHLQKDOHHDFKGD\7KLVDLUTXDOLW\DQDO\VHVQHHGVWR FRQVLGHUWKHFXPXODWLYHLPSDFWVRIWKHSURMHFWUHODWHGHPLVVLRQ VH[LVWLQJDQGSURMHFWHG IXWXUHHPLVVLRQVIURPORFDO30
VRXUFHV
HJVWDWLRQDU\VRXUFHVPRWRUYHKLFOHVDQG
DLUSRUWWUDIILF
XSRQWKHRXWGRRUDLUFRQFHQWUDWLRQVDWWKH3UR MHFWVLWH,IWKHRXWGRRU FRQFHQWUDWLRQVDUHGHWHUPLQHGWRH[FHHGWKH&DOLIRUQLDDQG1DWLRQDODQQXDODYHUDJH30 H[FHHGHQFH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ RI JP RU WKH 1DWLRQDO KRXU DYHUDJH H[FHHGHQFH FRQFHQWUDWLRQRIJPWKHQWKHEXLOGLQJVQHHGWRKDYHDPHFKDQLFDOVXSSO\RIRXWGRRU DLU WKDW KDV DLU ILOWUDWLRQ ZLWK VXIILFLHQW UHPRYDO HIILFLHQF\ VXFK WKDW WKH LQGRRU
RI
FRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIRXWGRRU30 SDUWLFOHVLVOHVVWKDQWKH&DOLIRUQLDDQG1DWLRQDO30 DQQXDODQGKRXUVWDQGDUGV
,WLVP\H[SHULHQFHWKDWEDVHGRQWKHSURMHFWHGKLJKWUDIILFQRLVHOHYHOVWKHDQQXDODYHUDJH FRQFHQWUDWLRQRI30
ZLOOH[FHHGWKH&DOLIRUQLDDQG1DWLRQDO30 DQQXDODQGKRXU VWDQGDUGVDQGZDUUDQWLQVWDOODWLRQRIKLJKHIILFLHQF\DLUILOWHUV LH0(59RUKLJKHU
LQ
DOOPHFKDQLFDOO\VXSSOLHGRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQV\VWHPV
,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\,PSDFW0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
7KHIROORZLQJDUHUHFRPPHQGHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVWRPLQLPL]HWKHLPSDFWVXSRQLQGRRU TXDOLW\
,QGRRU)RUPDOGHK\GH&RQFHQWUDWLRQV0LWLJDWLRQ8VHRQO\FRPSRVLWHZRRGPDWHULDOV HJ
KDUGZRRG SO\ZRRG PHGLXP GHQVLW\ ILEHUERDUG SDUWLFOHERDUG IRU DOO LQWHULRU ILQLVK
V\VWHPVWKDWDUHPDGHZLWK&$5%DSSURYHGQRDGGHGIRUPDOGHK\GH 1$)
UHVLQV
&$5%
&$5% 3KDVH FHUWLILHG FRPSRVLWH ZRRG SURGXFWV RU XOWUDORZ HPLWWLQJ IRUPDOGHK\GH
8/()
UHVLQVGRQRWLQVXUHLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHF RQFHQWUDWLRQVWKDWDUH EHORZ WKH &(4$ FDQFHU ULVN RI SHU PLOOLRQ 2QO\ FRPSRVLWH ZRRG SURGXFWV PDQXIDFWXUHGZLWK&$5%DSSURYHGQRDGGHGIRUPDOGHK\GH
1$)
UHV LQVVXFKDVUHVLQV
PDGHIURPVR\SRO\YLQ\ODFHWDWHRUPHWK\OHQHGLLVRF\DQDWHFDQ LQVXUHWKDWWKH2(++$ FDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQLVPHW
$OWHUQDWLYHO\ FRQGXFW WKH SUHYLRXVO\ GHVFULEHG 3UH&RQVWUXFWLR Q %XLOGLQJ 0DWHULDO)XUQLVKLQJ&KHPLFDO(PLVVLRQV$VVHVVPHQWWRGHWHUPLQHWKDWWKHFRPELQDWLRQRI IRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVIURPEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVDQGIXUQLVKLQJV GRQRWFUHDWHLQGRRU IRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVWKDWH[FHHGWKH&(4$FDQFHUDQGQRQFDQFHUKHDOWKULVNV
,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWZHDUHQRWDVNLQJWKDWWKHEXLOGHU³VSHFXODWH´RQZKDWDQGKRZ PXFKFRPSRVLWHPDWHULDOVEHXVHGEXWUDWKHUDWWKHGHVLJQVWDJHWRVHOHFWFRPSRVLWHZRRG PDWHULDOVEDVHGRQWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWHVWKDWPDQXIDFWXUHUVURXWLQHO\FRQGXFW XVLQJ WKH &DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQW RI +HDOWK ³6WDQGDUG 0HWKRG IRUWKH 7HVWLQJ DQG
RI
(YDOXDWLRQ RI 9RODWLOH 2UJDQLF &KHPLFDO (PLVVLRQV IRU ,QGRRU 6RXUFHV 8VLQJ (QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV´
&'3+
DQGXVHWKHSURFHGXUHGH VFULEHGDERYH
LH
3UH&RQVWUXFWLRQ%XLOGLQJ0DWHULDO)XUQLVKLQJ)RUPDOGHK\GH(PLV VLRQV$VVHVVPHQW WR
LQVXUHWKDWWKHPDWHULDOVVHOHFWHGDFKLHYHDFFHSWDEOHFDQFHUULVNVIURPPDWHULDORIIJDVVLQJ RIIRUPDOGHK\GH
2XWGRRU $LU 9HQWLODWLRQ 0LWLJDWLRQ 3URYLGH HDFK KDELWDEOH URRP ZLWK D FRQWLQXRXV PHFKDQLFDOVXSSO\RIRXWGRRUDLUWKDWPHHWVRUH[FHHGVWKH&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ(QHUJ\ (IILFLHQF\6WDQGDUGV
&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RPPLVVLRQ
UHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHJUHDWHURI
FIPRFFXSDQWRUFIPIWRIIORRUDUHD)ROORZLQJLQVWDOODWLRQRIWKHV\VWHPFRQGXFW WHVWLQJDQGEDODQFLQJWRLQVXUHWKDWUHTXLUHGDPRXQWRIRXWGRRUDLULVHQWHULQJHDFKKDELWDEOH URRPDQGSURYLGHDZULWWHQUHSRUWGRFXPHQWLQJWKHRXWGRRUDLUIO RZUDWHV'RQRWXVH H[KDXVWRQO\PHFKDQLFDORXWGRRUDLUV\VWHPVXVHRQO\EDODQFHG RXWGRRUDLUVXSSO\DQG H[KDXVWV\VWHPVRURXWGRRUDLUVXSSO\RQO\V\VWHPV3URYLGHDPDQXDOIRUWKHRFFXSDQWVRU PDLQWHQDQFHSHUVRQQHOWKDWGHVFULEHVWKHSXUSRVHRIWKHPHFKDQLFDORXWGRRUDLUV\VWHPDQG WKHRSHUDWLRQDQGPDLQWHQDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHV\VWHP
30 2XWGRRU$LU&RQFHQWUDWLRQ0LWLJDWLRQ,QVWDOODLUILOWUDWLRQZLWKVXIILFLHQW30 UHPRYDO HIILFLHQF\
HJ 0(59 RU KLJKHU
WR ILOWHU WKH RXWGRRU DLU HQWHULQJ WKH
PHFKDQLFDORXWGRRUDLUVXSSO\V\VWHPVVXFKWKDWWKHLQGRRUFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIRXWGRRU30 SDUWLFOHVDUHOHVVWKDQWKH&DOLIRUQLDDQG1DWLRQDO30 DQQXDODQGKRXUVWDQGDUGV ,QVWDOOWKHDLUILOWHUVLQWKHV\VWHPVXFKWKDWWKH\DUHDFFHVVLEOHIRUUHSODFHPHQWE\WKH RFFXSDQWVRUPDLQWHQDQFHSHUVRQQHO,QFOXGHLQWKHPHFKDQLFDOR XWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQ V\VWHPPDQXDOLQVWUXFWLRQVRQKRZWRUHSODFHWKHDLUILOWHUVDQGWKHHVWLPDWHGIUHTXHQF\RI UHSODFHPHQW
RI
5HIHUHQFHV
$(&20,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ$OW D&XYHH0L[HG8VH 3URMHFW
%,)$ %,)0$ 3URGXFW 6DIHW\ DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH 6WDQGDUGV DQG*XLGHOLQHV ZZZELIPDRUJSDJHVWDQGDUGVRYHUYLHZ
&DOLIRUQLD$LU5HVRXUFHV%RDUG
$LUERUQH7R[LF&RQWURO0HDVXUHWR5HGXFH
)RUPDOGHK\GH(PLVVLRQVIURP&RPSRVLWH:RRG3URGXFWV&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\6DFUDPHQWR&$
KWWSV
ZZZDUEFDJRYUHJDFWFRPSZRRGIURILQDOSGI
&DOLIRUQLD $LU 5HVRXUFHV %RDUG 7R[LF $LU &RQWDPLQDQW ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ /LVW &DOLIRUQLD (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\ 6DFUDPHQWR &$ KWWSV
ZZZDUEFDJRYWR[LFVLGWDFOLVWKWP
&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH3DUW9ROXPH $SSHQGL[&KDSWHU,QWHULRU(QYLURQPHQW'LYLVLRQ9HQWLODW LRQ6HFWLRQ
&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ&RGH&DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RPPLVVLRQ6DFUDPHQWR&$
&DOLIRUQLD %XLOGLQJ 6WDQGDUGV &RPPLVVLRQ
&DOLIRUQLD *UHHQ %XLOGLQJ
6WDQGDUGV&RGH&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH3DUW &DOLIRUQLD%XLOGLQJ 6WDQGDUGV&RPPLVVLRQ6DFUDPHQWR&$KWWS
ZZZEVFFDJRY+RPH&$/*UHHQDVS[
&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RPPLVVLRQ3,(53URJUDP&(&) LQDO5HSRUW$5% &RQWUDFW$YDLODEOHDW
ZZZDUEFDJRYUHVHDUFKDSUSDVWSGI
&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RPPLVVLRQ%XLOGLQJ(QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\6WDQGDUGVIRU 5HVLGHQWLDODQG1RQUHVLGHQWLDO%XLOGLQJV&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI5HJXODWLRQV7LWOH3DUW KWWS
ZZZHQHUJ\FDJRYSXEOLFDWLRQV&(&&(& &0)SGI
RI
&'3+6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH7HVWLQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI 9RODWLOH2UJDQLF &KHPLFDO(PLVVLRQVIRU,QGRRU6RXUFHV8VLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPE HUV9HUVLRQ &DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3XEOLF +HDOWK 5LFKPRQG &$ KWWSV
ZZZFGSKFDJRY3URJUDPV&&'3+3'(2'&(+/%,$43DJHV92&DVS[
(3$([SRVXUH)DFWRUV+DQGERRN
(GLWLRQ&KDSWHU ±$FWLYLW\)DFWRUV
5HSRUW(3$5
)6HSWHPEHU86(QYLURQPHQWDO3U RWHFWLRQ$JHQF\ :DVKLQJWRQ'&
+RGJVRQ$7'%HDO-(50F,OYDLQH6RXUFHVRIIRUPDOGHK\GHRWKHUDOGHK\GHV DQGWHUSHQHVLQDQHZPDQXIDFWXUHGKRXVH,QGRRU$LU ±
2(++$
2IILFHRI(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK+D]DUG$VVHVVPHQW
$LU7R[LFV+RW6SRWV
3URJUDP5LVN$VVHVVPHQW*XLGHOLQHV
*XLGDQFH0DQXDOIRU3UHSDUD WLRQRI+HDOWK5LVN
$VVHVVPHQWV
2(++$
2IILFHRI(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK+D]DUG$VVHVVPHQW
D3URSRVLWLRQ6DIH
+DUERU/HYHOV1R6LJQLILFDQW5LVN/HYHOVIRU&DUFLQRJHQVDQG0D[LPXP$OORZDEOH'RVH /HYHOV IRU &KHPLFDOV &DXVLQJ 5HSURGXFWLYH 7R[LFLW\ $YDLODEOH D W
KWWS
ZZZRHKKDFDJRYSURSSGIVDIHKDUERUSGI
2(++$2IILFHRI(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK+D]DUG$VVHVVPHQWE$OO2(++$$FXWH KRXU DQG &KURQLF 5HIHUHQFH ([SRVXUH /HYHOV $YDLODEOH DW
KWWS
RHKKDFDJRYDLUDOOUHOVKWPO
2IIHUPDQQ)-
9HQWLODWLRQDQG,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\LQ1H Z+RPHV&DOLIRUQLD$LU 5HVRXUFHV%RDUGDQG&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RPPLVVLRQ3,(5(QHUJ\Ǧ5HODWHG(QYLURQPHQWDO 5HVHDUFK 3URJUDP &ROODERUDWLYH 5HSRUW &(&
KWWSV
ZZZDUEFDJRYUHVHDUFKDSUSDVWSGI
2IIHUPDQQ)-DQG$7+RGJVRQ(PLVVLRQ5DWHVRI9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&RPSRXQGV LQ1HZ+RPHV3URFHHGLQJV,QGRRU$LU
WK,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RQIHUHQFHRQ,QGRRU$LU
4XDOLW\DQG&OLPDWH
-XQH$XVWLQ7;
RI
6LQJHU%&&KDQ:5.LP<2IIHUPDQQ)-DQG:DONHU, 6,QGRRU$LU 4XDOLW\LQ&DOLIRUQLD+RPHVZLWK&RGH5HTXLUHG0HFKDQLFDO9HQWLODWLRQ,QGRRU$LU9RO ,VVXH
6RXWK&RDVW$LU4XDOLW\0DQDJHPHQW'LVWULFW
6&$40'
&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO
4XDOLW\ $FW $LU 4XDOLW\ +DQGERRN 6RXWK &RDVW $LU 4XDOLW\ 0DQDJHPHQW 'LVWULFW 'LDPRQG %DU &$ KWWS
ZZZDTPGJRYKRPHUXOHVFRPSOLDQFHFHTDDLUTXDOLW\
DQDO\VLVKDQGERRN
86*%&/(('%'&+RPHVY86*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ&RXQFLO:DVKLQJWRQ'& KWWS
ZZZXVJEFRUJFUHGLWVKRPHVY
RI
$33(1',;$
,1'225)250$/'(+<'(&21&(175$7,216
$1'7+(
&$5%)250$/'(+<'($7&0
:LWKUHVSHFWWRIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVIURPFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVWKH&$5%$7&0 UHJXODWLRQVRIIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVIURPFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVGRQRWDVVXUH KHDOWKIXOLQGRRUDLUTXDOLW\7KHIROORZLQJLVWKHVWDWHGSXUSR VHRIWKH&$5%$7&0 UHJXODWLRQ The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”.,QRWKHUZRUGVWKH&$5%$7&0UHJXODWLRQVGRQRW³DVVXUHKHDOWKIXOLQGRRU DLUTXDOLW\´,EXWUDWKHU³UHGXFHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVIURPFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWV´
-XVWKRZPXFKSURWHFWLRQGRWKH&$5%$7&0UHJXODWLRQVSURYLGHE XLOGLQJRFFXSDQWV IURPWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQVJHQHUDWHGE\FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWV"'HILQLWHO\VRPH EXWFHUWDLQO\WKHUHJXODWLRQVGRQRW³assure healthful indoor air quality” ZKHQ&$5%3KDVH SURGXFWVDUHXWLOL]HG . $VVKRZQLQWKH&KDQ
VWXG\RIQHZ&DOLIRUQLDKRPHVWKH
PHGLDQ LQGRRU IRUPDOGHK\GH FRQFHQWUDWLRQ ZDV RI JP SSE
ZKLFK
FRUUHVSRQGVWRDFDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQIRURFFXSDQWVZ LWKFRQWLQXRXVH[SRVXUH ZKLFKLVPRUHWKDQWLPHVWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQ
$QRWKHUZD\RIORRNLQJDWKRZPXFKSURWHFWLRQWKH&$5%$7&0UHJ XODWLRQVSURYLGH EXLOGLQJ RFFXSDQWV IURP WKH IRUPDOGHK\GH HPLVVLRQV JHQHUDWHG E\ FRPSRVLWH ZRRG SURGXFWVLVWRFDOFXODWHWKHPD[LPXPQXPEHURIVTXDUHIHHWRIFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWWKDW FDQEHLQDUHVLGHQFHZLWKRXWH[FHHGLQJWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVNRI SHUPLOOLRQIRU RFFXSDQWVZLWKFRQWLQXRXVRFFXSDQF\
)RUWKLVFDOFXODWLRQ,XWLOL]HGWKHIORRUDUHD
IW
WKHFHLOLQJKHLJKW
IW
DQGWKH
QXPEHURIEHGURRPV
DVGHILQHGLQ$SSHQGL[%
1HZ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQFH6FHQDULR
RIWKH6WDQGDUG0HWKRGIRUWKH7HVWLQJDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI9RODWLOH2UJDQLF&KHPLFDO(PLVVLRQVIRU,QGRRU 6RXUFHV8VLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO&KDPEHUV9HUVLRQ&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI3XEOLF+HDOWK
RI
5LFKPRQG &$ KWWSV
ZZZFGSKFDJRY3URJUDPV&&'3+3
'(2'&(+/%,$43DJHV92&DVS[
)RUWKHRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWH,XVHGWKH
7LWOHF RGHUHTXLUHGPHFKDQLFDO
YHQWLODWLRQUDWH
$6+5$(
RIFIP
P
K
FDOFXODWHGIRUWKLVPRGHOUHVLGHQFH
)RUWKHFRPSRVLWHZRRGIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWHV,XVHGWKH&$5%$7&03KDVHUDWHV
7KHFDOFXODWHGPD[LPXPQXPEHURIVTXDUHIHHWRIFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWWKDWFDQEHLQ DUHVLGHQFHZLWKRXWH[FHHGLQJWKH&(4$FDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQIRURFFXSDQWVZLWK FRQWLQXRXVRFFXSDQF\DUHDVIROORZVIRUWKHGLIIHUHQWW\SHVRI UHJXODWHGFRPSRVLWHZRRG SURGXFWV
0HGLXP'HQVLW\)LEHUERDUG
0')
±IW
RIWKHIORRUDUHD
RU
3DUWLFOH%RDUG±IW
RIWKHIORRUDUHD
RU
+DUGZRRG3O\ZRRG±IW
RIWKHIORRUDUHD
RU
7KLQ0')±IW
RIWKHIORRUDUHD
)RURIILFHVDQGKRWHOVWKHFDOFXODWHGPD[LPXPDPRXQWRIFRPSRVL WHZRRGSURGXFW RI
IORRUDUHD
WKDWFDQEHXVHGZLWKRXWH[FHHGLQJWKH&(4$FDQFHU ULVNRISHUPLOOLRQIRU RFFXSDQWVDVVXPLQJKRXUVGD\RFFXSDQF\DQGWKH&DOLIRUQLD0HFKDQLFDO&RGHPLQLPXP RXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHVDUHDVIROORZVIRUWKHGLIIHUHQW W\SHVRIUHJXODWHGFRPSRVLWH ZRRGSURGXFWV
0HGLXP'HQVLW\)LEHUERDUG
0')
±
RIILFHV
DQG
KRWHOURRPV
RU
3DUWLFOH%RDUG±
RIILFHV
DQG
KRWHOURRPV
RU
+DUGZRRG3O\ZRRG±
RIILFHV
DQG
KRWHOURRPV
RU
7KLQ0')±
RIILFHV
DQG
KRWHOURRPV
&OHDUO\WKH&$5%$7&0GRHVQRWUHJXODWHWKHIRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVL RQVIURPFRPSRVLWH ZRRGSURGXFWVVXFKWKDWWKHSRWHQWLDOO\ODUJHDUHDVRIWKHVHSURGXFWVVXFKDVIRUIORRULQJ EDVHERDUGVLQWHULRUGRRUVZLQGRZDQGGRRUWULPVDQGNLWFKHQ DQGEDWKURRPFDELQHWU\ FRXOGEHXVHGZLWKRXWFDXVLQJLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQ VWKDWUHVXOWLQ&(4$
RI
FDQFHU ULVNV WKDW VXEVWDQWLDOO\ H[FHHG SHU PLOOLRQ IRU RFFXSDQWV ZLWK FRQWLQXRXV RFFXSDQF\
(YHQFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVPDQXIDFWXUHGZLWK&$5%FHUWLILHGX OWUDORZHPLWWLQJ IRUPDOGHK\GH
8/()
UHVLQVGRQRWLQVXUHWKDWWKHLQGRRUDLUZL OOKDYHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI IRUPDOGHK\GHWKHPHHWWKH2(++$FDQFHUULVNVWKDWVXEVWDQWLDOO\ H[FHHGSHUPLOOLRQ 7KHSHUPLVVLEOHHPLVVLRQUDWHVIRU8/()FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVDUHRQO\ORZHU WKDQWKH&$5%3KDVHHPLVVLRQUDWHV2QO\XVHRIFRPSRVLWHZRR GSURGXFWVPDGHZLWK QRDGGHGIRUPDOGHK\GHUHVLQV
1$)
VXFKDVUHVLQVPDGHIURPVR \SRO\YLQ\ODFHWDWHRU PHWK\OHQHGLLVRF\DQDWHFDQLQVXUHWKDWWKH2(++$FDQFHUULVNRISHUPLOOLRQLVPHW
,I&$5%3KDVHFRPSOLDQWRU8/()FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVDUHXWLOL]HGLQFRQVWUXFWLRQ WKHQWKHUHVXOWLQJLQGRRUIRUPDOGHK\GHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVVKRXOGEHGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHGHVLJQ SKDVHXVLQJWKHVSHFLILFDPRXQWVRIHDFKW\SHRIFRPSRVLWHZRRG SURGXFWWKHVSHFLILF IRUPDOGHK\GHHPLVVLRQUDWHVDQGWKHYROXPHDQGRXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHVRIWKHLQGRRU VSDFHVDQGDOOIHDVLEOHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVHPSOR\HGWRUHGXFHWKLVLPSDFW HJXVHOHVV
IRUPDOGHK\GHFRQWDLQLQJFRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWVDQGRULQFRUSRUDWHPHFKDQLFDOV\VWHPV FDSDEOHRIKLJKHURXWGRRUDLUYHQWLODWLRQUDWHV
6HHWKHSURFH GXUHGHVFULEHGHDUOLHU
LH
3UH&RQVWUXFWLRQ%XLOGLQJ0DWHULDO)XUQLVKLQJ)RUPDOGHK\GH(PLV VLRQV$VVHVVPHQW WR
LQVXUHWKDWWKHPDWHULDOVVHOHFWHGDFKLHYHDFFHSWDEOHFDQFHUULVNVIURPPDWHULDORIIJDVVLQJ RIIRUPDOGHK\GH
$OWHUQDWLYHO\DQGSHUKDSVDVLPSOHUDSSURDFKLVWRXVHRQO\FRPSRVLWHZRRGSURGXFWV HJ
KDUGZRRG SO\ZRRG PHGLXP GHQVLW\ ILEHUERDUG SDUWLFOHERDUG IRU DOO LQWHULRU ILQLVK
V\VWHPVWKDWDUHPDGHZLWK&$5%DSSURYHGQRDGGHGIRUPDOGHK\GH 1$)
UHVLQV
EXHIBITB
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Vincent Acuna, Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 25 February 2022
RE: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Dear Mr. Acuna,
I write to comment on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (RIS/MND) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I commented on the original IS/MND in my letter of 26 September 2021.
Herein I comment on new or revised issues that are raised in the RIS/MND, as well as on issues I raised regarding the IS/MND, but which remain unaddressed in the RIS/MND.
ESISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The RIS/MND does a slightly better job of characterizing baseline conditions of the site, but only slightly. The improvement is in the provision of an updated memo from AECOM regarding its reconnaissance-level survey performed on 24 September 2020.
The original IS/MND had omitted lists of species detected during this survey. What was not improved, and what warranted an improvement, was a follow-up survey (or multiple surveys) at an appropriate time of day for wildlife. The survey was performed by AECOM in the middle of a hot afternoon – a time during the day when, as biologists are generally well-aware, wildlife activity is at its nadir and species are least likely to be detected. The updated memo reveals that AECOM detected only 8 species of vertebrate wildlife.
Of the 8 species detected by AECOM, 3 were not detected by Noriko Smallwood, who surveyed the site on my behalf during the morning of 4 September 2021 (Table 1). That AECOM found only 8 species at the same site where Noriko Smallwood found 24 goes to my point that AECOM’s survey was performed at an inappropriate time of day for its stated purpose “to determine the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within the biological survey area.” Noriko found 3 times the number of species that AECOM found. The survey that is supposed to inform of the existing environmental setting, which itself is supposed to serve as the baseline against which potential impacts are analyzed, fails to do so. Neither the original IS/MND nor the RIS/MND should be treating the AECOM survey results as representative of existing environmental conditions.
2 Table 1. Species of wildlife detected by AECOM during the afternoon of 24 September 2020 and by Noriko Smallwood (NS) who surveyed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site.
Species Scientific name Status AECOM NS
Great blue heron Ardea herodius +
Gull Laridae +
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP +
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP +
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura +
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native + Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native +
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna +
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis +
Say's phoebe Sayornis saya +
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans + +
Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans +
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native +
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica +
Common raven Corvus corax +
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos +
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor +
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica +
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos + +
Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus +
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native +
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus + +
Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria + +
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus
beecheyi
+ +
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae +
Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana +
Western fence lizard Sceloperus occidentalis +
The results of the AECOM survey combined with those of Noriko’s survey brings the tally of vertebrate wildlife species detections to 27. The RIS/MND ignores Noriko’s survey results and what they mean to the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the likelihoods of special-status species occurrences. The RIS/MND misleadingly reports, “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey.” This reporting is misleading not only because it ignores the special-status species that Noriko detected, but also attempts to pass off the AECOM survey effort as sufficient for detecting special- status species. It was not. No reconnaissance-level survey effort is capable of detecting all the species that use a site, including those that use it seasons and times of day other than when the reconnaissance-level survey was performed. Furthermore, no biologist is perfect at detecting the species of wildlife that are available to be detected at the time of
3 the survey. For these reasons, to characterize the wildlife community at a site, multiple methods and multiple surveys are needed (see below).
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: ൌ
ଵ
ଵ ൗ ାൈሺு௨௦ሻ, where represented cumulative species richness detected.
The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of
0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 1). On average I detected 9 species over the first 1.8 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (1.8 hours to match the number of hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 15.8 % of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 1, the 24 species Noriko detected after her 1.8 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 15.8% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect ʹͶ ͲǤͳͷͺൗ ൌ ͳͷʹ species of vertebrate wildlife at the site.
The site is predicted to host 152 species of vertebrate wildlife over the course of the average year, which is nearly 20 times the number implied in the RIS/MND. Again, however, my prediction of 152 species of vertebrate wildlife is derived from visual-scan surveys during the daytime, and would not detect nocturnal mammals. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. This later point is especially true of a survey performed during the middle of a hot afternoon.
4 Figure 1. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, , as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.
There is no question that a larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby changing our understanding of the current environmental setting. But still unknown are which species have yet to be detected, how many of the yet-to-be-detected species are special-status species, and how many are listed species. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that special- status species tend to be rarer and thus less detectable than common species. Special- status species also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 2). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species. Also note that I include California Fully Protected species and federal Candidate species as listed species.)
02 04 06 08 0 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
5 Figure 2. Probability
of detecting ≥1
Candidate, Threatened
or Endangered Species
of wildlife listed under
California or federal
Endangered Species
Acts, based on survey
outcomes logit-
regressed on the
number of wildlife
species I detected during
152 site visits in
California. The dashed
vertical line represents
the number of species
detected by AECOM and
the solid vertical line
represents the number
Noriko Smallwood
detected.
As was demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Greater survey effort also increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species). Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects, Noriko Smallwood’s survey effort at the project site carried a 28% chance of detecting a listed species, whereas the survey effort of AECOM resulted in the detections of many fewer species and therefore carried an 11% chance of detecting a listed species. To stand a reasonable chance of detecting a listed species, AECOM would have needed to perform another 9 of the surveys it completed on 21 September 2020. I have no doubt that listed species use the site, but serious efforts to detect them must be made before determining listed species are absent. No reconnaissance-level survey is capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a site to realistically characterize the site’s wildlife community. This context bears on my earlier and current comments regarding potential project impacts to biological resources.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The RIS/MND revises the City’s treatment of burrowing owls by considering the species potentially present. However, while acknowledging potential presence of burrowing owls, the RIS/MND also downplays their occurrence likelihood by asserting that the site does not provide high quality habitat. Unless the City measured productivity of burrowing owls on site and compared productivity to burrowing owls at other sites, the City has no means of assessing habitat quality. Habitat quality carries a specific meaning in the field of wildlife biology, and that meaning goes to productivity, which is Number of species detected
Probability of detecting Fully Protected,
Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species
01 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 70
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
95% CI
152 site visits
6 measured by nest success, fecundity, number of chicks emerged from the burrow, number of chicks surviving to fledging, and even the number of chicks surviving to reproduce. None of these measurements were made at the site, so no conclusion of habitat quality can be taken as credible. The questions that are in most need of answers before the CEQA review is certified is whether the site provides habitat to burrowing owls, how many burrowing owls use the site, and for what purpose(s) do burrowing owls use the site. To answer these questions, the detection surveys recommended by CDFW (2012) need to be implemented in full, and they need to be completed prior to the public circulation of an EIR because one of the main objectives of the surveys is to inform the public and decision-makers of potential impacts and whether and to what degree they can be mitigated.
The RIS/MND continues to imply that lack of CNDDB records support the RIS/MND determinations of species’ absences from the site. This is a misapplication of CNDDB.
CNDDB can be helpful for confirming occurrences of special-status species where they have been reported, but it cannot be relied upon for determining absences of species.
CNDDB relies on volunteer reporting, and is limited in its spatial coverage by the access of biologists to private properties. The findings reported to CNDDB are not from any sort of randomized or systematic sampling across California, nor does CNDDB collect reports of negative findings. Another limitation of CNDDB is its focus on special-status species. Most members of any of California’s wildlife communities are not reported to CNDDB, because CNDDB is not interested in them and Scientific Collecting Permits do not require reporting of them. This means that any species recently designated with special status will not be as well represented in CNDDB as are other species that were assigned special status decades ago. The limitations of CNDDB are well-known, and summarized by CDFW in a warning presented on its CNDDB web site (https:// wildlife.ca .gov/Data/CNDDB/ Maps-and-Data): “We work very hard to keep the CNDDB and the Spotted Owl Database as current and up-to-date as possible given our capabilities and resources. However, we cannot and do not portray the CNDDB as an exhaustive and comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an important obligation of our customers…” A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately assess occurrence likelihoods of special-status species as part of the characterization of the current environmental setting.
Habitat Loss
The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding habitat loss to breeding birds. Based on simple assumptions and simple calculations, I predicted the project would deny Californians of 116 birds per year. This loss would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impacts of habitat loss to birds and other wildlife.
Wildlife Movement
The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding wildlife movement and how, in its analysis, the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard centered on whether the site is
7 part of a wildlife movement corridor. The CEQA standard does not rely on whether the site is part of a corridor.
BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding bird-window collision mortality, which I predicted would be 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329). This level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impacts of bird-window collisions.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding mortality caused by project-generated traffic. I predicted the project’s traffic would cause 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year.
This level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impacts of vehicle-wildlife collisions.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding cumulative impacts, and how the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard for determining whether the project would contribute cumulatively to impacts to wildlife. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential cumulative impacts
MITIGATION
BIO-1 and BIO-3: Preconstruction survey for roosting bats and nesting birds
The RIS/MND splits the original mitigation measure BIO-1 into two measures, BIO-1 and BIO-3, but doing so did not address any of the issues I raised in my comment letter of 26 September 2021. Whereas I concur these preconstruction surveys should be performed, I again point out that only small fractions of the surveys’ targets would be found and salvaged before the site’s habitat is destroyed. The habitat of bats and birds would be permanently destroyed, thereby decreasing the numerical capacities of birds and bats in the area. Habitat elsewhere is already occupied, and would be incapable of absorbing birds and bats displaced from this project.
BIO-2: Burrowing owl surveys
I concur with the implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, but this needs to happen prior to the circulation of an EIR. The surveys need to inform the public and the decision-makers of the project’s potential impacts to burrowing owls and whether and to what degree those impacts can be mitigated.
8 Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
EXHIBITC
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]
March 16, 2022
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the February 2022 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“RIS/MND”) for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (“Project”) located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 260-unit apartment building, 3,339-square feet (“SF”) of commercial space, and 5,500-SF of indoor amenity space, as well as a total of 528 parking spaces, on the
5.2-acre site.
Our review concludes that the RIS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, 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 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The RIS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-9).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
1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
2 project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Modeling Outputs as Appendix K to the RIS/MND, respectively, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the RIS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. Thus, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.
Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size
According to the RIS/MND, the Project proposes to construct “259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet” (p. 1-14). Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the correct number of residential units (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 4, 58, 112).
However, further review demonstrates that the square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area was reduced from the default value of 259,000- to 225,079-SF (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 10, 64, 118).
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is:
“Apartments: 226,649 SF (Includes Live/Work Unit)” (Appendix K, pp. 4, 58, 112). 2 “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 .
3 However, this justification is insufficient for two reasons.
First, the RIS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that a floor surface area of 225,079-SF is accurate.
Second, as previously stated, the RIS/MND indicates that the 259 apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF (p. 1-13). Thus, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185-SF3 to 354,053-SF.4 As such, in order to conduct the most conservative analysis, the model should have included 354,053-SF of floor surface area.
This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).5 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the residential floor surface area, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Underestimated Parking Land Use Size
According to the RIS/MND:
“The proposed Project would provide 528 total parking spaces: 200 surface parking spaces and 328 garage parking spaces, including guest parking spaces” (p. 1-15).
However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes only 265 spaces of “Enclosed Parking with Elevator” (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 4, 58, 112).
As demonstrated above, while the model correctly includes 200 surface parking spaces, the number of garage parking spaces is underestimated by 63 spaces.6 Additionally, further review demonstrates that floor surface areas for both the “Enclosed Parking with Elevator” and “Parking Lot” land uses were 3 Calculated: 715-SF * 259 units = 185,185-SF total.
4 Calculated: 1,367-SF * 259 units = 354,053-SF total.
5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide,p . 2 9 .
6 Calculated: 328 proposed garage parking spaces – 265 modeled garage parking spaces = 63 underestimation.
4 reduced from the default value of 106,000- to 89,810-SF and 80,000-SF to 64,690-SF, respectively (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 10, 64, 118).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the garage and surface parking land use sizes were manually reduced by 16,190-SF and 15,310-SF, respectively.7, 8 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Sub. Parking: 89,810 SF
Sfc. Parking: 64,690 SF” (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113).
However, the RIS/MND fails to mention the square footage of the proposed garage or surface parking land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify the revised parking land use sizes.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as the square footage of parking land uses is used for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).10 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the square feet of the proposed parking land uses, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 6, 60, 114).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the nonresidential exterior architectural and area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 100- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”). As previously 7 Calculated: (106,000-SF default “Enclosed Parking with Elevator” land use size) – (89,810-SF revised land use size) = 16,190-SF reduction.
8 Calculated: (80,000-SF default “Parking Lot” land use size) – (64,690-SF revised land use size) = 15,310-SF reduction.
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide,p .2 9 .
5 mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 11 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113 Compliance for Building Envelope and residential coatings - 50 g/L” (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113).
However, these changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First, the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the Building Envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required per SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only Building Envelope coatings during construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 8, 62, 116).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would include only one gas fireplace. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults 11 “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 .
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. 35, 41.
6 be justified. 13 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“No Fireplaces in units per Project Design
1 Outdoor Fireplace Included” (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113).
However, this justification is insufficient, as the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or substantiate the exclusion of gas fireplaces from the Project design whatsoever. 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.”14
Here, as the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the assumption that no gas fireplace would be included in the Project design, we cannot verify the changes.
This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project’s area-source operational emissions.15 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the gas fireplace values, the model may underestimate the Project’s area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use” model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 9, 63, 117).
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. 1.
14 “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.
15 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 40-41.
7 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Residential Trips” (Appendix K, pp. 6, 60, 114).
However, these changes remain unsupported, as the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the operational vehicle fleet mix or justify the revised percentages whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
16 “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 .
8 “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” (emphasis added).17
Here, as the RIS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, we cannot verify the changes.
These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.18 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates
According to the RIS/MND:
“It is anticipated that the proposed Project would accommodate approximately 788 future residents, and operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste for residential uses and 154 pounds per day for commercial uses during Project operation” (p. 4-79).
As such, the model should have included 584- and 28.1-tons per year (“tpy”) of solid waste for the Project’s proposed residential and commercial land uses.19, 20 However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes only 580.32- and 25.45-tpy of solid waste for the proposed residential and commercial land uses, respectively (see excerpts below) (Appendix K, pp. 172-173).
17 “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.
18 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 37.
19 Calculated: 1.6 tons * 365 days = 584 tpy for the residential land use. 20 Calculated: (154 lbs / 2,000) * 365 days = 28.1 tpy for the commercial land uses.
9 As you can see in the excerpt above, the residential and commercial solid waste generation rates were underestimated by 3.68- and 2.5-tpy. Thus, the model is underestimated and inconsistent with the information provided in the RIS/MND.
These underestimations present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project’s operational GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.21 Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates, the model underestimates the Project’s operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 10, 64, 118).
21 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide,p . 4 6 .
10 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.22 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Project Inventory provided by Applicant” (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113).
However, the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or justify the revised construction off- road equipment horsepower values whatsoever. 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” (emphasis added).23
Here, as the RIS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised horsepower values, we cannot verify the changes.
These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses horsepower values to calculate emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.24 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model assumes that most of the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Final emissions standards (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 7, 61, 115).
22 “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.
23 “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.
24 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 33.
11 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.25 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for the inclusion of Tier 4 Final mitigation is:
“Best management practices to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 include watering exposed areas thrice daily” (Appendix B, pp. 71).
Furthermore, the RIS/MND implements the following Best Management Practice (“BMP”), which would be included as a standard condition of Project approval:
“The proposed Project would require the employment of contractor(s) capable of providing an equipment fleet comprising all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with engines greater than 25 horsepower that meet or exceed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 off-road emissions standards. The use of Tier 4 engines is a standard practice for development projects and will be required by the City pursuant to the proposed Project’s conditions of approval and in accordance with the General Plan Update EIR (adopted on December 15, 2021)” (p. 1-17).
However, the inclusion of Tier 4 Final emissions standards remains unsupported. As demonstrated above, the RIS/MND fails to require the more efficient Tier 4 Final emission standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) has slowly adopted more stringent standards to lower the emissions from off-road construction equipment. Since 1994, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment have been phased in over time. Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest 25 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 2, 9.
12 burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment (see excerpt below):26
As demonstrated in the figure above, Tier 4 Interim equipment has higher emission levels than Tier 4 Final equipment. Therefore, by modeling construction emissions assuming a full Tier 4 Final equipment fleet, the RIS/MND fails to account for higher emissions that may occur as a result of the use of Tier 4 Interim equipment. Since the RIS/MND fails to specify whether the Project would use Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final equipment, it is incorrect to model emissions assuming that the more efficient Tier 4 Final equipment would be implemented. Until an EIR is prepared requiring Tier 4 Final engines during all phases of construction, and not Tier 4 Interim equipment, the model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the following area-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (Appendix K, pp. 54, 108, 165):
26 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August 2015, available at: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction _Ordinance_2015.pdf, p. 6
13 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.27 However the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, only provides justification for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures, which states:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113 Compliance for Building Envelope” (Appendix K, pp. 6, 60, 114).
However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remains unsupported for three reasons.
First, the RIS/MND fails to mention the use of low VOC paints whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify the Project actually intends on implementing the area-related operational mitigation measures.
Second, the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project’s purported compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported. As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts.” 28 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures “are not part of the original project design” and are intended to go “above-and-beyond” existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project’s vague compliance SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated.
Third, the RIS/MND fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as Project-level mitigation measures. This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).
Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental 27 “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 .
28 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), February 2020, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5.
14 impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact” (emphasis added).29 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the area-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The RIS/MND estimates that the carcinogenic risk posed to nearby, existing child and adult sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 2.64 and 0.35 in one million, respectively, neither of which would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 4-15; Table 4.3-4).
Regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the RIS/MND states:
“Operation of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area. The proposed Project does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations. The operational emissions analysis shown in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates that operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in 29 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), February 2020, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.
15 substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations” (p. 4-15).
As demonstrated above, the RIS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because the Project’s equipment and facilities would not result in significant toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. However, the RIS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for five reasons.
First, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA fails to account for the third trimester of pregnancy or infant receptors. According to OEHHA guidance, as discussed in detail below, residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.30 As such, by not accounting for the first two age groups, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA is not “protective of children.”31 Furthermore, because parameters for child and adult receptors are less than the parameters for the third trimester of pregnancy and infant receptors, such as Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASFs”), the RIS/MND’s calculated carcinogenic risks are underestimated.
Second, the RIS/MND’s construction-related HRA utilizes an incorrect Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) value. Specifically, the HRA utilizes a FAH value of 0.72 for the child receptor (see excerpt below) (p. 4- 15; Table 4.3-4):
However, the FAH value used for the childhood age is incorrect, as SCAQMD guidance states:
30 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-5. 31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-5.
16 “For Tiers 1, 2, and 3 screening purposes, the FAH is assumed to be 1 for ages third trimester to
16. As a default, children are assumed to attend a daycare or school in close proximity to their home and no discount should be taken for time spent outside of the area affected by the facility’s emissions. People older than age 16 are assumed to spend only 73 percent of their time at home.”32
As such, per SCAQMD guidance, the HRA should have used an FAH of 1 for the child receptor. Thus, by utilizing an incorrect FAH value, the RIS/MND’s construction HRA underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction.
Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. 33 According to the IS/MND, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,503 average daily vehicle trips which will generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions regardless (p. 4-10). However, the RIS/MND fails to evaluate the potential TACs associated with Project operation or the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in TAC emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.
Fourth, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015, as referenced by the RIS/MND (p. 4-13).34 The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).35 Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more.
Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. This recommendation reflects the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project operation be included in an EIR for the Project.
32 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 33 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 34 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 35 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15
17 Fifth, while the RIS/MND includes an HRA evaluating the Project’s health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance, as referenced by the RIS/MND, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location” (p. 4-13).36 However, the RIS/MND’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is incorrect and thus, an updated analysis should quantify the entirety of the Project’s construction and operational health risks together and sum them to compare to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the RIS/MND (p. 4-15). 37 Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model.
38 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA39 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)40 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors using the Project’s annual PM10 exhaust estimates. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.
Subtracting the 735-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 27.99 years, approximately. The RIS/MND’s annual CalEEMod output file indicates that operational activities will generate approximately 86 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.41 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project operation, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
36 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4 37 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 38 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model.” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf. 39 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 40 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 41 See Attachment A for calculations.
18 ݊݅ݏݏ݅݉ܧ ݁ݐܴܽ ݏ݉ܽݎ݃
݀݊ܿ݁ݏቁ = 85.6 ݏܾ݈
365 ݏݕܽ݀× 453.6 ݏ݉ܽݎ݃
ݏܾ݈× 1 ݕܽ݀
24 ݏݎݑ݄× 1 ݎݑ݄
3,600 ݏ݀݊ܿ݁ݏ= . ࢍ/࢙
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00123 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with approximate dimensions of 205- by 103-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Rancho Cucamonga was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data. 42 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.43 According to the RIS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located directly adjacent to the Project site (p. 4-13). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”) is located approximately 100 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.964 μg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1964 μg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.44 Consistent with the 735-day construction schedule, the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the latter 0.24 years of the infant stage of life (0 – 2 years), as well as the entire child (2 – 16 years) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life.
Consistent with OEHHA guidance, as recommended by SCAQMD and referenced by the IS/MND, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASF(s)”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution (p. 4-15).45 According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th
42 “Rancho Cucamonga.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0659451. 43 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36. 44 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Rule 1200 Health Risk Assessments (HRAs).” SDAPCD, July 2019, available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD _1200_Supplemental_Guidelines.pdf.
45 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
19 percentile breathing rates for infants.46 Finally, consistent with OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) Value of 1 for the infant and child receptors, and a FAH value of 0.73 for adult receptors.47 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown in the tables below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions
Source
Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-day)
Cancer Risk
(without ASFs*) ASF Cancer Risk
(with ASFs*)
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * 361 * 10 *
Construction 1.76 * 1090 *
Operation 0.24 0.1964 1090 7.62E-07
Infant
(Age 0 - 2) Total 2 7.62E-07 10 7.62E-06
Child
(Age 2 - 16) Operation 14 0.1964 572 2.37E-05 3 7.11E-05 Adult
(Age 16 - 30) Operation 14 0.1964 261 7.89E-06 1 7.89E-06 Lifetime 30 3.24E-05 8.66E-05
* Cancer risk calculated separately in the RIS/MND.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 7.62,
71.1, and 7.89 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with the Project operation over the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 86.6 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the RIS/MND’s construction-related cancer risk of 2.64 and 0.35 in one million,48 we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 89.59 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) (p. 4-15; Table 4.3-4).49 As such, the
46 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, June 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 47 “Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_ 080717.pdf, p. 7, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf.
48 It is important to note that the RIS/MND’s construction-related cancer risk is underestimated, as it fails to start exposure in the third trimester of pregnancy.
49 Calculated: 86.6 in one million + 2.64 in one million + 0.35 in one million = 89.59 in one million.
20 lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the RIS/MND.
An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Thus, an EIR should be prepared, including a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse (“GHG”) emissions of 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1).
Furthermore, the RIS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 4-37 – 4-39). However, the RIS/MND’s GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons:
(1) The RIS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model;
(2) The RIS/MND’s quantitative GHG analys is relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) The RIS/MND fails to indicate a potentially significant GHG impact; and (4) SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.
21 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,935.3 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1). However, the RIS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Modeling Outputs as Appendix K to the RIS/MND, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the RIS/MND. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the RIS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,935.3 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.50 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.”51
As it is currently March 2022, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the RIS/MND’s less-than- significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO
2e/SP/year”), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.52
3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact When applying the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model
50 “HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550.” available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=38550. 51 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 52 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2.
22 indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.53 As previously stated, the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,935.3 MT CO2e/year (p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1).
Furthermore, according to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population (“SP”) is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”54 The RIS/MND states:
“With regards to the AQMP growth projections, operation of the proposed Project would introduce 260 new multi-family residential units to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, with an expected population of approximately 788 individuals as discussed in Section 4.14 Population and Housing” (p. 4-11).
As such, we estimate a SP of 788 people. When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the RIS/MND, by a SP of 788 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately
3.7 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).55
RIS/NMD Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 2,935.3
Service Population 788
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 3.7
SCAQMD 2035 Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the RIS/MND’s provided net annual GHG emission estimates and SP, exceed the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the RIS/MND. As a result, the RIS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than- significant levels.
4) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated models, we included the correct land use sizes and solid waste generation rates; omitted the unsubstantiated changes to architectural and area coating emission factors, gas fireplace values, operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, and off-road equipment horsepower values;
53 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 54 “CEQA & Climate Change.” CAPCOA, January 2008, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf, p. 71-72. 55 Calculated: (2,935.3 MT CO2e/year) / (788 service population) = (3.7 MT CO2e/SP/year).
23 incorporated Tier 4 Interim instead of Tier 4 Final emission standards; and excluded the incorrect operational mitigation measures.56
SWAPE’s updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact, when applying the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. The updated CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project-specific information, disclose the Project’s mitigated emissions, which include approximately 2,922 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2022, 2023, and 2024) and approximately 3,637 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,734 MT CO2e/year (see table below).
SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Total Construction 2,921.81
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 97.39
Area 57.88
Energy 737.69
Mobile 2,371.12
Waste 310.42
Water 159.54
Annual Operational 3,636.65
Total Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,734.04
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the RIS/MND. As a result, the RIS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less- than-significant levels.
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project
56 See Attachment C for CalEEMod output files.
24 Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 57
SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:
In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.
Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
57 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –
4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.
25 p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. 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.
26 - 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:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.
Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines.
27 c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; 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;
28 iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
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 EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are
29 implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0428
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.234520548
Total DPM (lbs) 85.6
Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001231233
Release Height (meters) 3
Total Acreage 5.2
Max Horizontal (meters) 205.15
Min Horizontal (meters) 102.58
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Setting Urban
Population 174,453
Start Date 3/5/2022
End Date 3/9/2024
Total Construction Days 735
Total Years of Construction 2.01
Total Years of Operation 27.99
Operation
Emission Rate
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Startdateandtime03/09/2216:22:09
AERSCREEN21112
AltaCuvee,Operation
AltaCuvee,Operation
ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞDATAENTRYVALIDATIONŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ METRICENGLISH
**AREADATA**ŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞŞ
EmissionRate:0.123EŞ02g/s 0.977E Ş02lb/hr
AreaHeight: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AreaSourceLength:205.15meters 673.06 feet
AreaSourceWidth:102.58meters 336.55 feet
VerticalDimension:1.50meters 4.92 feet
ModelMode: URBAN
Population: 174453
DisttoAmbientAir: 1.0meters 3. feet
**BUILDINGDATA**
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
NoBuildingDownwashParameters
**TERRAINDATA**
NoTerrainElevations
SourceBaseElevation:0.0meters0.0feet
Probedistance:5000.meters16404.feet
Noflagpolereceptors
Nodiscretereceptorsused
**FUMIGATIONDATA**
Nofumigationrequested
**METEOROLOGYDATA**
Min/MaxTemperature:250.0/310.0KŞ9.7/98.3DegF
MinimumWindSpeed:0.5m/s
AnemometerHeight:10.000meters
DominantSurfaceProfile:Urban
DominantClimateType:AverageMoisture
Surfacefrictionvelocity(u*):notadjusted
DEBUGOPTIONON
AERSCREENoutputfile:
2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation.out
***AERSCREENRunisReadytoBegin
Noterrainused,AERMAPwillnotberun
**************************************************
SURFACECHARACTERISTICS&MAKEMET
Obtainingsurfacecharacteristics...
UsingAERMETseasonalsurfacecharacteristicsforUrbanwithAverageMoisture
SeasonAlbedoBozo
Winter0.351.501.000
Spring0.141.001.000
Summer0.162.001.000
Autumn0.182.001.000
Creatingmetfilesaerscreen_01_01.sfc&aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creatingmetfilesaerscreen_02_01.sfc&aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creatingmetfilesaerscreen_03_01.sfc&aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creatingmetfilesaerscreen_04_01.sfc&aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildingsand/orterrainpresentorrectangularareasource,skippingprobe
FLOWSECTORstarted03/09/2216:24:40
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingWinter
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Wintersector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingSpring
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Springsector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingSummer
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Summersector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
********************************************
RunningAERMOD
ProcessingAutumn
Processingsurfaceroughnesssector1
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector1
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector2
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector5
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector3
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector10
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector4
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector15
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector5
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector20
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector6
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector25
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
*****************************************************
Processingwindflowsector7
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforFLOWSECTORstage2Autumnsector30
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
FLOWSECTORended03/09/2216:24:50
REFINEstarted03/09/2216:24:50
AERMODFinishesSuccessfullyforREFINEstage3Wintersector0
********WARNINGMESSAGES********
***NONE***
REFINEended03/09/2216:24:51
**********************************************
AERSCREENFinishedSuccessfully
Withnoerrorsorwarnings
Checklogfilefordetails
***********************************************
Endingdateandtime03/09/2216:24:53
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT
0.15020E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16425E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17610E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18610E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19637E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.19734E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15377E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11000E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89502E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.75200E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64408E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56051E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49393E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44001E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39580E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35826E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32688E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29975E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27646E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25606E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23804E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22221E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20821E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19563E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18421E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17390E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16458E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15613E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14843E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14130E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13475E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12873E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12316E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11801E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11319E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10871E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10454E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10064E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.96972E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.93512E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.90263E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.87208E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84339E-01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.81621E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.79052E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.76626E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.74328E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72149E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.70080E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68114E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.66243E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64450E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.62740E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.61109E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.59550E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58057E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56621E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55246E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53928E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52665E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.51452E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50287E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49171E-01 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48094E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47057E-01 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46060E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45098E-01 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44171E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43277E-01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42414E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41580E-01 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40775E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39997E-01 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39244E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38516E-01 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37811E-01 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37128E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36751E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36098E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35466E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34852E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34257E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33679E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33117E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32572E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32042E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31526E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31025E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30538E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30064E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29602E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29152E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28715E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28288E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27872E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27467E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27072E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26686E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26310E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25943E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25585E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25235E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24894E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24560E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24234E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23916E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23605E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23300E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23003E-01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22712E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22427E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22148E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21876E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21608E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21347E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21091E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20840E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20595E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20354E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20119E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19888E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19661E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19439E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19221E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19008E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18798E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18593E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18391E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18193E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17999E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17808E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17621E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17437E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17257E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17079E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16905E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16734E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16566E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16400E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16238E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16078E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15921E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15767E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15615E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15466E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15319E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15175E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15033E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14893E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14756E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14620E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14487E-01 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14356E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14227E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14100E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13975E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13852E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13730E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13611E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13493E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13377E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13263E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13150E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13039E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12930E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12822E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12716E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12611E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12508E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12406E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12306E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12207E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12110E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12013E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11918E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11825E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11733E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11641E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11552E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11463E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11375E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11289E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11204E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11120E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11037E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10955E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10874E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10794E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10715E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10637E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10560E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10484E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10409E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10335E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10262E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10190E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10118E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10048E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99780E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99091E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.98411E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97738E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
Project Characteristics - Consistent with RIS/MND's model.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size" and "Underestimated Parking Land Use Size"
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.54 1000sqft 0.13 5,537.00 0
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 328.00 Space 0.00 131,200.00 0 Parking Lot 200.00 Space 1.80 80,000.00 0
City Park 0.33 Acre 0.33 14,375.00 0
Recreational Swimming Pool 3.58 1000sqft 0.00 3,572.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 Dwelling Unit 3.00 354,053.00 785 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 1,570.00 3
Strip Mall 2.44 1000sqft 0.00 2,436.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 32
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
627.49 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project
San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 1 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Construction Phase - Consistent with RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Trips and VMT - Consistent with RIS/MND's model.
Grading - Consistent with RIS/MND's model.
Architectural Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values." Energy Use - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Water And Wastewater - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation" Fleet Mix - See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix." CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 2 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Water Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model.
Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 3 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 72.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 72.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 540.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 390.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 12.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 24.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 96.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 108.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 24.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 12.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 772.17 164.47
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 4 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
tblEnergyUse T24E 845.95 177.65
tblEnergyUse T24E 3.92 3.50
tblEnergyUse T24E 3.07 2.74
tblEnergyUse T24E 4.58 4.09
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.10 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 0.05 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 21,180.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 10,590.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,540.00 5,537.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 14,374.80 14,375.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,580.00 3,572.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 259,000.00 354,053.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,000.00 1,570.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,440.00 2,436.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.95 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.08 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.82 3.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00
tblLandUse Population 741.00 785.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 5 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 702.44 627.49 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 119.14 584.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 0.03 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 0.46 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 6 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 20.41 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 2.56 28.10
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,648.00 2,880.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 1,324.00 1,440.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 67.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 67.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 57.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 286.00 200.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 286.00 200.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 40.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 57.00 40.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 8.40 10.06
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.90 10.06
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 16.60 10.06
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 11.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 40.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 10.06
tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 7 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 10.06
tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 20.00
tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP 19.20 20.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 10.06
tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00
tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 15.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 86.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 45.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 5.48
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.10 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 34.08
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 5.48
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 13.60 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 34.08
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 5.48
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 8 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 33.82 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 34.08
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 16,874,892.64 24,295,400.00 tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 65,154.03 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 984,644.96 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 211,732.46 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 180,736.95 2,979,860.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 603,492.07 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 110,774.26 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 12.95 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.05 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 12.95 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.05 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 9 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.3077 2.9439 2.9131 8.6700e-
003
0.3829 0.0913 0.4741 0.0906 0.0866 0.1772 0.0000 786.8868 786.8868 0.0941 0.0000 789.2398 2023 3.1367 5.7500 8.7114 0.0212 0.8649 0.2025 1.0674 0.2321 0.1954 0.4276 0.0000 1,899.942 8 1,899.942
8 0.1992 0.0000 1,904.923
9 2024 0.0833 0.5883 0.9628 2.5300e-
003
0.1247 0.0167 0.1414 0.0334 0.0162 0.0496 0.0000 227.1850 227.1850 0.0187 0.0000 227.6522 Maximum 3.1367 5.7500 8.7114 0.0212 0.8649 0.2025 1.0674 0.2321 0.1954 0.4276 0.0000 1,899.942 8 1,899.942
8 0.1992 0.0000 1,904.923
9 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1913 2.3047 3.3178 8.6700e-
003
0.3829 0.0149 0.3978 0.0906 0.0147 0.1053 0.0000 786.8864 786.8864 0.0941 0.0000 789.2394 2023 2.9341 5.6849 9.4808 0.0212 0.8649 0.0632 0.9281 0.2321 0.0627 0.2949 0.0000 1,899.941 8 1,899.941
8 0.1992 0.0000 1,904.922
8 2024 0.0642 0.5996 1.0423 2.5300e-
003
0.1247 3.7100e-
003
0.1284 0.0334 3.6500e-
003
0.0371 0.0000 227.1849 227.1849 0.0187 0.0000 227.6520
Maximum 2.9341 5.6849 9.4808 0.0212 0.8649 0.0632 0.9281 0.2321 0.0627 0.2949 0.0000 1,899.941 8 1,899.941
8 0.1992 0.0000 1,904.922
8 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 10 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
ROG NOx 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
9.58 7.47 -9.96 0.00 0.00 73.65 13.58 0.00 72.81 33.18 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 3-5-2022 6-4-2022 1.0409 0.6503
2 6-5-2022 9-4-2022 0.6314 0.5954
3 9-5-2022 12-4-2022 1.0487 0.8075
4 12-5-2022 3-4-2023 1.1862 1.0962
5 3-5-2023 6-4-2023 1.7816 1.7257
6 6-5-2023 9-4-2023 2.8553 2.7654
7 9-5-2023 12-4-2023 3.1483 3.0713
8 12-5-2023 3-4-2024 0.9541 0.9340
9 3-5-2024 6-4-2024 0.0274 0.0264
Highest 3.1483 3.0713
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 11 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.5321 0.0768 2.7065 4.3000e-
004
0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0000 57.4636 57.4636 5.2500e- 003
9.7000e-
004
57.8849
Energy 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1400e-
003
0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0000 734.3489 734.3489 0.0283 8.8400e- 003
737.6910
Mobile 0.4302 2.9752 5.6448 0.0255 2.0948 0.0155 2.1103 0.5614 0.0144 0.5758 0.0000 2,368.464 1 2,368.464
1 0.1061 0.0000 2,371.116
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 125.2962 0.0000 125.2962 7.4048 0.0000 310.4160 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.6532 136.5093 145.1625 0.8951 0.0223 174.1820 Total 1.9832 3.2308 8.4279 0.0271 2.0948 0.0485 2.1433 0.5614 0.0474 0.6088 133.9494 3,296.785 8 3,430.735
2 8.4396 0.0321 3,651.290
5 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 12 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.5321 0.0768 2.7065 4.3000e-
004
0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0000 57.4636 57.4636 5.2500e- 003
9.7000e-
004
57.8849
Energy 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1400e-
003
0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0145 0.0000 734.3489 734.3489 0.0283 8.8400e- 003
737.6910
Mobile 0.4302 2.9752 5.6448 0.0255 2.0948 0.0155 2.1103 0.5614 0.0144 0.5758 0.0000 2,368.464 1 2,368.464
1 0.1061 0.0000 2,371.116
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 125.2962 0.0000 125.2962 7.4048 0.0000 310.4160 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.8744 125.2508 133.1252 0.8146 0.0203 159.5371 Total 1.9832 3.2308 8.4279 0.0271 2.0948 0.0485 2.1433 0.5614 0.0474 0.6088 133.1706 3,285.527 3 3,418.697
8 8.3591 0.0301 3,636.645
5 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx 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 0.58 0.34 0.35 0.95 6.23 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PMPage 13 of 63 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project - San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual