City Council and Authorities Concurrent
June 7, 2022

Memo
To: John Davidson and Alexander Abbe, City of Santa Clara CC: Ray Pendro, MIG, and Chris Butcher, Thomas Law Group From: Phil Gleason and Chris Dugan
Date: May 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Greystar General Plan Amendment:

Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo for Air Quality Comments This memorandum addresses the portions of the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo letter received at the City of Santa Clara Planning Commission Meeting on April 13, 2022, as they relate to the air quality, health risk assessment, and greenhouse gas emissions analyses of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2020060425; City of Santa Clara 2021). The responses provided herein this memorandum correspond to the coded comments contained in Attachment A. This memorandum also contains the results of a quantitative construction health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the Greystar General Plan Amendment Project as Attachment B.

Coded Responses
General Plan Consistency Response: See the end of this memorandum for a detailed response on this matter.

Response 1: The commenter reiterates their assertion that the City has violated CEQA by failing to conduct a quantitative health risk analysis. As responded to in FEIR Response to Comment L4.30, the Draft EIR utilized a robust, qualitative discussion to assess health risks from construction and operational emissions in order to demonstrate the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The Draft EIR’s detailed qualitative analysis supports the conclusion that the Project would result in less-than-significant health risks (i.e., the Project would not result in emissions that would exceed the numerical health risk thresholds provided in Draft EIR Table 5-10, including the cancerogenic health risk threshold). The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance constitute a basis for disclosing the magnitude of the Project’s health risk impacts. Therefore, the analysis contained in the Project’s EIR explained the nature and magnitude of the impact and determined it to be less than significant.

Nonetheless, to further respond to claims made by the commenter, the City prepared a quantitative construction health risk assessment (HRA) for the Greystar Project, which demonstrates that diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with construction of the Greystar Project would not result in significant cancerogenic or non-cancerogenic health risk impacts, which is the same conclusion reached in the Project’s EIR. The construction HRA estimated DPM concentrations at receptor locations utilizing the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) AERMOD dispersion model, which is an EPA-approved and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended model for simulating the dispersion of pollutant emissions and FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 2 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
estimating concentrations of pollutants at specified receptor locations. Estimated DPM pollutant concentrations were translated into potential health risks utilizing California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommended methodologies and assumptions.

The quantitative construction HRA was prepared for two emissions scenarios and under two sets of meteorological conditions utilizing conservative assumptions. All four of the total scenarios evaluated found potential health risks to be less than significant, further affirming the rationale and findings of the EIR.

It should be further noted that when using the meteorological data set recommended by the BAAQMD for the dispersion modeling conducted for the Project, potential cancerogenic health risks estimated for the Project were found to be less than one tenth of the BAAQMD’s cancerogenic health risk threshold of

10.0 excess cancers per million population. See the construction HRA memorandum for additional details regarding the methodology and results of the quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Project.

Response 2: The commenter incorrectly asserts that the City’s responses in the Final EIR indicated that disclosure of potential health risks is not necessary, and the quote provided by the commenter from Final EIR Response to Comment L4.31 is used out of context. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR and the responses provided in the Final EIR were made on a less-than-significant impact determination for potential health risks that could be posed by the Project. The commenter’s excerpt from the Court’s explanation in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno is not applicable to the Project, because whereas the Project in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno was determined to have a significant impact, the Greystar Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact. As discussed in Response 1, the City prepared a quantitative construction HRA for the Greystar Project that affirms DPM emissions associated with the Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact.

Response 3: The commenter references the results of a screening-level HRA prepared by SWAPE. As discussed in Response 1, the City prepared a quantitative construction HRA that determined construction DPM emissions associated with the Greystar Project would not result in a significant health risk impact. The EIR’s qualitative analysis of potential health risk impacts, which is based on substantial evidence, is further supported by the results of the construction HRA prepared for the Project.

Response 4: The commenter refers to responses provided in the Final EIR that identify several assumptions made by SWAPE during the preparation of their screening-level HRA that are not appropriate for the Project. The screening-level HRA prepared by SWAPE, as contained in Final EIR Comment Letter L-4, is not considered substantial evidence for the reasons identified in Final EIR Response to Comment L4.124. This is further evidenced by SWAPE’s revised screening-level HRA that was submitted with this comment letter, dated April 13, 2022, which acknowledges their initial operational cancer risk estimate was, “overestimated” and “artificially inflated” (SWAPE, pg. 7). Nonetheless, as discussed in Response 1, the City prepared a quantitative construction HRA that determined construction DPM emissions associated with the Greystar Project would not result in a significant health risk impact.

Response 5: The commenter incorrectly suggests that the utilization of off-road equipment meeting U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or Tier IV emissions standards, as was FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 3 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
analyzed in the Draft EIR based on information provided by the Project Applicant, should have been incorporated as a mitigation measure to avoid a significant impact. As described in Response 1, a quantitative construction HRA was prepared for the Greystar Project. The quantitative construction HRA evaluated two emissions scenarios: Scenario 1, which was based on the equipment type and engine classification provided by the Applicant and analyzed in the Draft EIR, and Scenario 2, which was based on average county-wide emissions rates derived from CARB’s OFFROAD2021 emission factor database for the various pieces of off-road equipment that are anticipated for use on the Project. Scenario 2 evaluated the same equipment type (e.g., scraper, grader, etc.), runtime hours, engine horsepower, etc., as Scenario 1. The only difference being that the equipment’s emissions rates for Scenario 2 are based on county-wide data (obtained from CARB’s official off-road diesel equipment emissions inventory/model) as opposed to the specific U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or Tier IV standards identified in the EIR. The results of the emissions analysis between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 revealed that the average county-wide off-road emissions factor in the Santa Clara Sub-Area for Year 2022 was between U.S.

EPA / CARB Tier III and Tier IV standards (see more on this under the “Discussion of Scaling Health Risk Values” subheading on page 10 of the construction HRA memorandum). As such, the engine tier classification data provided by the Project Applicant is consistent with what is expected to be used for a typical project occurring in the Santa Clara Sub-Area for Year 2022. As detailed in the construction HRA memorandum, potential health risks associated with Greystar Project were found to be less than significant based on both emissions scenarios. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that even if the specific engine tier equipment identified by the Project Applicant were not used for the Project – which is not anticipated to be the case – that the use of average engine tier of equipment operating in the Santa Clara Sub-Area also would result in a less-than-significant impact. The commenter, therefore, is incorrect that the EIR needs to incorporate the use of equipment meet U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or Tier IV emissions standards as a mitigation measure, because no significant impact would occur with the use of other construction equipment typically used in the Project’s region, in the year during which construction activities would be occurring. Regardless, because the applicant proposed using Tier III and Tier IV equipment as part of the project, such equipment will be required as part of the conditions of approval.

Response 6: The commenter summarizes that the EIR’s analysis of the Greystar Project’s construction emissions are based on a list of heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction, as provided by the Project Applicant, including the engine tier classification. This comment is introductory and does not require further response.

Response 7: The commenter summarizes the commenter’s interpretation of the Court’s holding in Lotus v. Department of Transportation. This comment is introductory and does not require further response.

Response 8: The commenter incorrectly asserts that the EIR, by incorporating the use of Tier III and Tier IV off-road construction equipment into the EIR’s analysis, has compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue.

The proposed Project is not like the Lotus case for several reasons, and has not compressed the analysis of impacts into a single issue.

FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 4 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
First, as described in Response 5, the quantitative construction HRA memorandum prepared for the Greystar Project analyzed emissions from two scenarios, and found that the average county-wide off-road emissions factor in the Santa Clara Sub-Area for Year 2022 was between U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III and Tier IV standards. It should be further noted that the Tier III and Tier IV emissions standards for new equipment started being phased-in in 2006 and 2008, respectively, approximately 17 and 15 years prior to when construction activities associated with the Greystar Project are anticipated to start. To phrase this differently – Tier III and Tier IV equipment have been on the market for almost two decades at this point, and most, if not all, Tier I and Tier II equipment have been phased out of the construction fleets operating in the Santa Clara region (based on the emissions profile reflected in OFFROAD2021). While some older equipment may still be in use in the area, even when it is assumed that such lower tier equipment may be included in the construction fleet for a project, the average emission factor for construction equipment in the region nevertheless exceeds Tier III standards (given that more Tier III and Tier IV equipment is in circulation than older, lower tier equipment) and, for that reason, standard modeling (i.e., that evaluated in Scenario 2 of the quantitative construction HRA) accounts for an off-road equipment emissions profile above Tier III. Thus, even if, as OFFROAD2021 assumes, some lower tier equipment may be included in the construction fleet, the Project’s potential impact would remain less than significant. As the developer committed not to use any lower tier equipment, the emission profile for the Project has the potential to be even lower than using standard modeling assumptions. The use of Tier III and Tier IV equipment is not unique or special to this Project or region; rather, it is consistent with national, state, and county-wide conditions. Thus, it is more than reasonably foreseeable, indeed, highly likely, that Tier III and Tier IV equipment would be used even if not proposed as part of the Project and required as a condition of approval.

Second, unlike the Lotus case, the EIR has not identified any specialized operating conditions for off-road construction equipment that could be construed as “avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures.” The EIR’s analysis is based on typical conditions under which off-road construction equipment would operate, and the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment is necessitated for almost every single construction project of similar scope and size as the Greystar Project.

Third, the Draft EIR contained a full, robust analysis for each environmental impact that was related to the operation of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment. The EIR made significance determinations based on substantial evidence regarding criteria air pollutant emissions, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions that could be released from the Project. The Draft EIR analyses did not “compress the analysis” of impacts into a single issue.

Finally, information regarding construction equipment operating assumptions; construction phasing; worker, vendor, and hauling trips; and other construction parameters (e.g., quantity of soils for off-haul) was requested at the onset of environmental review as part of a data request and prior to any analysis conducted to evaluate the significance of Project’s air quality or greenhouse gas emissions, including potential health risks posed by receptor exposure to DPM emissions. The BAAQMD recommends “construction-related TAC and PM impacts should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 5 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
the specific construction-related characteristics of each project…” (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 2017; pg. 2-7, pg. 8-7, emphasis added). Thus, the Project’s approach to assessing air quality and greenhouse gas emissions is consistent with guidance provided by the BAAQMD, and the City has made a good-faith effort to disclose potential impacts associated with the Project by utilizing known project-specific information in its analysis.

The EIR analyzed potential impacts associated with construction of the Greystar Project utilizing construction activity information that was available, including the engine tier of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used for the Project, and analyzed potential impacts using established thresholds of significance. The Tier III and Tier IV heavy-duty off-road equipment analyzed in the EIR is readily available on the market, and the average emission rates are consistent with the overall off-road construction fleet utilized throughout the Santa Clara Sub-Area based on data obtained from CARB’s OFFROAD2021 model. The Project does not require any unique equipment, construction practices, or operating characteristics. The EIR has not compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue. Therefore, the use of Tier III and IV equipment does not need to be included in the MMRP, and the EIR does not need to be recirculated.

Further, the commenter’s claim that features of a project cannot be considered as such when “their purpose are [sic] to reduce adverse impacts” has no support in case law. Many projects as proposed include features that effect the project’s potential environmental impacts. For example, the Greystar Project includes a public park and pedestrian pathways, which necessarily effect various potential impacts of the project including transportation and recreation impacts. There is no requirement that such features be characterized as mitigation. Further, such a principle would prohibit project proponents from incorporating environmentally beneficial features into their initial project planning efforts, which is contrary to CEQA’s intent. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15124(c) [a project description shall identify a project’s “environmental characteristics” and “principal engineering proposals”]; see also CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F(II)(A)(3) [stating the project description shall identify “[e]nergy conservation equipment and design features”].)
Finally, the quantitative construction HRA prepared by MIG supports and amplifies the conclusion in the EIR that the Greystar Project’s pollutant concentrations of DPM do not result in significant health risks to sensitive receptors. As demonstrated in this analysis, the impact is less than significant regardless of whether the Applicant proposed to use Tier III and IV equipment, because, even absent the Applicant’s commitment not to use of lower tier equipment, the average county-wide off-road emissions factor in the Santa Clara Sub-Area for Year 2022 is between U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III and Tier IV standards. As the Applicant’s commitment to use Tier III and Tier IV equipment is not required to reduce potential health risk impacts to a less-than-significant level, that commitment does not constitute mitigation pursuant to CEQA. “[M]itigation measures are not required where the environmental effect is insignificant.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1141.) In short, the City disagrees that CEQA requires an EIR to identify all project features included in a project description, which reduce a project’s potentially significant environmental impacts, as mitigation measures. However, here, whether called mitigation or not, the FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 6 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
developer’s commitment to use Tier III and IV equipment (which is included in the Greystar Project’s conditions of approval) is not required to comply with CEQA.

Biology Response: See the end of this memorandum for a detailed response on this matter.

Response 9: The commenter indicates they have reviewed the Project’s Draft EIR and Final EIR and purports an updated EIR should be prepared to address the errors they allege are in the EIR. As described in Responses to Comments 10 through 41, the Final EIR has adequately and appropriately assessed the proposed Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. The significance of the air quality impacts have been accurately identified and mitigated as required by CEQA. The significance determinations made in the EIR are further affirmed by the results of the construction HRA prepared for the Greystar Project (see Response 1).

Response 10: The commenter presents results contained in Draft EIR Section 5.3.3, including Table 5-16, and a summary of the Draft EIR’s findings for the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions. The commenter specifically identifies the Draft EIR’s conclusions that the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan’s operational NOx and ROG emissions would exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds. This comment does not identify any deficiencies or inadequacies in the emissions modeling or analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Response 11: The commenter presents language contained in Draft EIR Section 5.3.3 explaining the significant and unavoidable findings made for the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions even after the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. This comment does not identify any deficiencies or inadequacies in the emissions modeling or analysis contained in the Draft EIR.

No further response is required.

Response 12: The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be significant and unavoidable is incorrect and cites CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2). The comment is introductory and lacks specificity.

Response 13: The commenter states that that although the Project has incorporated Mitigation Measures 5-3C and 5-3D, which address emissions from architectural coatings and mobile sources (via a Transportation Demand Management program), the Draft EIR and Final EIR have failed to implement all feasible mitigation measures. The commenter recommends additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated and provides a list of suggested measures at the end of the letter.

It should be noted that although this comment specifically addresses operational criteria air pollutant emissions from the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, that the overwhelming majority of mitigation measures recommended by the commenter do not address operational emissions; rather, they address construction emissions. As detailed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and further affirmed through the construction HRA prepared for the Greystar Project, the Greystar Project would not result in a significant impact related to its criteria air pollutant emissions or DPM emissions, and mitigation is not required. The Project has incorporated mitigation at the programmatic level (Mitigation Measures 5-3A, 5- 3D, and 5-5) to address potential construction air quality impacts associated with future development proposed within the Focus Plan Area.

FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 7 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
The commenter has provided no evidence that the Project’s significant-and- unavoidable impact determination for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan’s operational criteria air pollutants is unsubstantiated, nor has the commenter identified additional feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce the magnitude of the impact. Further, the duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would “substantially lessen” a significant environmental effect. (Public Resources Code, § 21002; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15021, subd. (a)(2).) Thus, a lead agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR. (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) The EIR’s significance conclusions are substantiated, and all feasible mitigation has been incorporated. The preparation of an updated EIR is not required as suggested by the commenter. See Responses 32 through 41 for a point-by-point response to each mitigation measure recommended by the commenter.

Response 14: The commenter presents an excerpt from the Draft EIR that discusses operational emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM from mobile sources in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan Area. This comment is introductory and lacks specificity. No further response is required.

Response 15: The commenter presents Mitigation Measure 5-3D from the Draft EIR. This comment is introductory and lacks specificity. No further response is required.

Response 16: The commenter suggests that EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3D, which requires residential and office land uses within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan to prepare and implement TDM Programs, is insufficient, because the measure, “fails to tangibly consider potential actions that could achieve the measure’s performance standard” (SWAPE, pg. 3). The existence of TDM Programs as well as their implementation and the menu of options available for achieving the goals of a TDM Program are not new concepts. The Valley Transportation Agency’s Requirements for Deficiency Plans, referenced in the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan EIR, identifies TDM Programs for the region dating as far back as 1992, approximately three decades prior to the preparation of the EIR (Santa Clara 2011; pg. 84). TDM Programs (and the measures that comprise the programs) have also been identified in the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan (Santa Clara 2010; pg. 140) and 2013 Climate Action Plan (Santa Clara 2013; pg. 89).

Furthermore, the Draft EIR includes examples of potential TDM measures throughout the document, including:
• Draft EIR pg. 5-31, which states, “The land uses would be required to comply with the City of Santa Clara’s Climate Action Plan and General Plan, which require the development and implementation of TDM measures. The TDM plans could include measures such as transit subsidies, carpool incentives, bicycling incentives, carshare memberships, additional last mile services, and/or vanpools.” • Draft EIR pg. 5-34, which states, “Telecommuting is an example of a measure that could be implemented through a TDM plan that would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and VMT.”
• Draft EIR pg. 17-34: “The following are example TDM measures that could be considered: providing both short- and long-term bicycle parking in convenient, secure and prominent locations in each building; providing FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 8 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
information about transit options and passes; distributing transportation news and commuter alerts; and providing information to residents (through links to appropriate websites, apps and other resources like “511”); and assisting with rideshare matching, which would also reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and VMT.”
The implementation of the example TDM measures identified above would be more than adequate for achieving the performance standard specified in Mitigation Measure 5-3D. For example, according to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, a transit subsidy program can result in up to a 5.5% reduction in vehicle emissions from employees/residents accessing the site (Measure T-9), providing information in transit options and passes can result in up to a 4% reduction in vehicle emissions from employees/residents accessing the site (Measure T-7), and providing a ridesharing program can result in up to a 8% reduction in vehicle emissions from employees/residents accessing the site (Measure T-8) (CAPCOA 2021). As noted in the CAPCOA document, the emissions reductions associated with TDM measure implementation can be paired/packaged together for increased (i.e., stacking) reductions (CAPCOA 2021, pg. 92).

Furthermore, the term “TDM measures” does not need to be redefined within the mitigation measure itself – examples of TDM measures have been well documented historically, and definitions and examples of TDM measures have been provided numerous times throughout the City’s planning documents, including the Draft EIR itself. The potential actions covered under the implementation of TDM measures would feasibly achieve the performance standard set forth by the mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 5-3D is adequate per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), and the Draft EIR and Final EIR both adequately address and mitigate the Project’s significant mobile- source operational emissions.

Response 17: The commenter reiterates the assertion made in their December 17, 2021, comment letter that the Draft EIR failed to adequately evaluate the proposed Project’s potential health risk impacts. The commenter indicates they have identified five reasons to support their assertion. This comment is introductory and lacks specificity. See Responses 18 through 28 for detailed responses on this matter.

Response 18: The commenter quotes a section of Response to Comment L4.119 from the Final EIR that concerns the construction emission rate for DPM that SWAPE had calculated. This comment is introductory. No further response is required.

Response 19: The commenter responds to a portion of Final EIR Response to Comment L4.119 indicating that the screening-level construction HRA they prepared only utilized on-road mobile source emissions and argues that the DPM emissions rate they used in the screening-level analysis was not overestimated.

Comment noted. As described in Response 1, the City prepared a quantitative construction HRA that evaluated potential health risks at residential receptors that could be exposed to construction DPM emissions associated with the Greystar Project. The results of the construction HRA affirm the Draft EIR’s determination that construction DPM emissions associated with the Greystar Project would not result in a significant health risk impact.

FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 9 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Response 20: See Response 19.

Response 21: The commenter quotes a section of Response to Comment L4.119 from the Final EIR related to BAAQMD guidelines for health risk assessments. This comment is introductory. No further response is required.

Response 22: The commenter acknowledges that the screening-level construction HRA they prepared incorrectly utilized PM
10 exhaust emissions when it should have utilized
PM2.5 exhaust emissions. See Response 19.

Response 23: See Response 19. The commenter has failed to acknowledge the deficiencies in their derivation of an operational emissions rate for a health risk assessment, as detailed in Final EIR Response to Comment L4.119. The commenter continues to improperly use the sum of all emissions sources included in CalEEMod (i.e., area, energy, and mobile) for their comparison purposes. As discussed in Final EIR Response to Comment L4.119, it is incorrect to assume that all PM

2.5 exhaust emissions from the Project would be 100 percent DPM. The commenter’s April 13, 2022, comment letter does not respond to or address any of the issues raised in Final EIR Response to Comment L4.119, nor have they provided any additional information to support their derivation of the operational emissions rate utilized in their December 17, 2021, comment letter. The actual DPM emission associated with operational activities would only be a minor subset of the mobile source emissions, which would be distributed throughout the city, county, and region in proximity of the Project site as vehicles travel on the regional transportation network. Thus, the fact that the commenter notes that, “the difference between operational PM
10 exhaust emissions and PM2.5 exhaust
emissions… is negligible” (SWAPE, pg. 6) is immaterial to the argument at hand.

The PM2.5 exhaust emissions total of approximately 0.1088 tons / year is not representative of operational DPM emissions and is an incorrect assumption by the commenter. The commenter has not provided any evidence that the Project would result in significant operational health risk impact and continues to incorrectly conflate sources contributing to DPM emissions.

Response 24: The commenter quotes a section of Response to Comment L4.119 from the Final EIR related to unmitigated vs. mitigated operational emissions rate from the Greystar Project. This comment is introductory. No further response is required.

Response 25: The commenter indicates they used the “mitigated” operational emissions estimates, not the “unmitigated” operational emissions estimates, for the Greystar Project during the preparation of their screening-level operational health risk assessment contained in their December 17, 2021, comment letter.

Comment noted. As shown in the unmitigated and mitigated Greystar Residential Development CalEEMod output files, Draft EIR pgs. 1238 and 1152, respectively, the PM

2.5 exhaust emission for operation mobile sources are both estimated to be approximately 0.0272 tons / year. This is because the operational mobile source emissions estimates shown in the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” file (Draft EIR pg. 1152) does not reflect the application of Mitigation Measure 5-3D. Mitigation Measure 5-3D, while applicable to the Greystar Project because it falls within the programmatic EIR’s analysis, was not quantified in the emissions modeling. This is because Mitigation Measure 5-3D was not needed to demonstrate that the Greystar Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be less-than-significant on the project-level.

Thus, the mobile source emissions reductions associated with the Greystar Project’s mobile source emissions would be lower than that shown in the Draft FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 10 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
EIR. Additional information is provided below on the additional reductions in mobile source emissions that would occur through the Greystar Project implementing Mitigation Measure 5-3D.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-3D would decrease the mobile source emissions shown in the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” CalEEMod file by approximately 14%. As shown in Hexagon’s Transportation Analysis, Draft EIR pg. 1492, Table 7, the Greystar Project’s trip generation would be decreased by approximately 5.6 percent based on reductions from fewer internal trips, fewer external public transit trips, and fewer retail passby trips. Thus, the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-3D for the Greystar Project, which requires a minimum reduction in VMT of 20 percent, is anticipated to reduce Greystar Project mobile source emissions by approximately 14 percent more than that shown in the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” CalEEMod file. Applying Mitigation Measure 5-3D to the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” CalEEMod file would further reduce already less-than-significant impacts at the project-level.

Response 26: The commenter quotes portions of Final EIR Response to Comment L4.119 related to the operational emissions rate the commenter had used for the operational HRA that was included in their December 17, 2021, comment letter.

This comment is introductory. No further response is required.

Response 27: The commenter acknowledges that the operational DPM emissions rate they utilized was overestimated and indicates that a more refined estimated of on-site DPM emissions was not utilized, because the Draft EIR did not provide on-site DPM emissions associated with the Project.

Comment noted. It should be reiterated that the operational HRA prepared by the commenter (contained in their December 17, 2021, comment letter) contained several incorrect assumptions regarding the methodology used to derive the DPM emissions rate, and the health risk estimates prepared by the commenter are not at all reflective of the Project. The actual DPM emission associated with operational activities would only be a minor subset of the mobile source emissions, which would be distributed throughout the city, county, and region in proximity of the Project site as vehicles travel on the regional transportation network. The operational DPM emissions would not come from the area sources, energy sources, or majority of mobile sources as had been assumed by the commenter.

The commenter’s operational HRA health risks were overestimated and artificially inflated, as acknowledged by the commenter. The operational HRA prepared by the commenter does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact. See also Response 19 regarding construction health risks associated with the Project.

Response 28: The commenter re-presents the results of their screening-level construction HRA.

As noted by the commenter in Response 29, the screening-level HRA is known to be conservative. The refined quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Greystar Project takes into account site specific details, including an emissions breakdown by construction year, emissions assignments to the specific areas in which the emissions would occur, topography, and meteorological conditions at the site. Thus, the quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Project reflects a more accurate portrayal of the Project’s emissions and health risks than the screening-level HRA prepared by the commenter. See Response 19.

FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 11 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Response 29: The commenter accurately quotes a section of the U.S. EPA’s “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined” that provides an overview of exposure assessment tools. This comment is introductory. No further response is required.

Response 30: The commenter suggests that an updated, refined quantitative HRA should be prepared, because their screening-level analysis indicates a potentially significant impact. See Response 19. The commenter has not provided any evidence of a potentially significant operational health risk impact. The analysis contained on page 5-55 of the Draft EIR provides the rationale for the less-than- significant operational health risk conclusion. Final EIR Response to Comments L4.30, L4.32, and L4.124 provide additional context regarding the appropriateness of the Project’s operational health risk assessment. Thus, no quantitative operational HRA was prepared.

Response 31: The commenter purports their analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a significant air quality impact, and that further mitigation should be identified to reduce the Project’s emissions, citing the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2020 RTP/SCS Programmatic EIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”). This comment is introductory. No further response is required.

Response 32: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(m), which includes recommendations for reducing fugitive dust by having an operational water truck on-site at all times and sweeping paved streets at least once per day.

The actions proposed by SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(m) are already incorporated into the Project through Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 5-3A and 5- 4A. Thus, the actions proposed by this measure would not be anything additional or new beyond that already addressed or covered in the EIR. Implementation of Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 5-3A and 5-4A would reduce the significance of fugitive dust emissions during construction to less than significant, consistent with the BAAQMD significance thresholds. No additional mitigation is required.

This additional mitigation measure has not been incorporated into the EIR.

Response 33: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(n), which includes recommendations for utilizing existing power sources or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.

As discussed under Draft EIR Impact 5-4 (Draft EIR pg. 5-43) and Impact 5-7 (Draft EIR pg. 5-54) the Greystar Project would not result in a significant criteria air pollutant or health risk impact during construction after the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-4A and 5-4B. The less-than-significant health risk assessment determination is further affirmed by the quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Project. The less-than-significant construction impacts associated with the Greystar Project do not require further mitigation.

Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5 were identified to address programmatic impacts associated with future development that could occur within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5 require the preparation of quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Mitigation Measures 5- 3B and 5-5 specify that if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 12 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measures 5- 3B and 5-5 identify equipment utilizing alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric- powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas) as a possible means by which to reduce construction emissions.

Incorporation of this mitigation measure is not required for the Greystar Project and would not further reduce the magnitude of Draft EIR Impact 5-3 and Impact 5-5 for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Further, the recommendations of SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(n) are already addressed through the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter.

Response 34: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(o), which includes recommendations that projects develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities.

As discussed under Draft EIR Impact 5-4 and Impact 5-7, the Greystar Project would not result in a significant criteria air pollutant or health risk impact during construction after the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-4A and 5-4B. The less-than-significant health risk assessment determination is further affirmed by the quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Project. The less-than- significant construction impacts associated with the Greystar Project do not require further mitigation.

Furthermore, Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1 functions in many aspects as a traffic plan, as suggested by SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(o). Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 13-1 restricts work hours, contains provisions that public notification be given, and requires construction traffic to follow City City- designated truck routes and avoid routes (including local roads in the Plan Area) that contain residential dwelling units to the maximum extent feasible given specific project location and access needs. Other considerations contained in PMM-AQ-1(o), such as use of public transportation or providing satellite parking areas with shuttle service, could be options considered under the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5, if needed.

This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter, because many of the provisions are already required through Mitigation Measure 13-1 and other options identified in PMM-AQ-1(o) could be considered, if needed, for future projects through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5. Further, incorporation of this mitigation measure is not required for the Greystar Project, nor would it reduce the magnitude of Draft EIR Impact 5-3 and Impact 5-5 for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan.

Response 35: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(p), which includes recommendations 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.

As discussed under Draft EIR Impact 5-4 (Draft EIR pg. 5-43) and Impact 5-7 (Draft EIR pg. 5-54) the Greystar Project would not result in a significant criteria air pollutant or health risk impact during construction after the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-4A and 5-4B. The less-than-significant health risk assessment determination is further affirmed by the quantitative construction FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 13 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
HRA prepared for the Project. The less-than-significant construction impacts associated with the Greystar Project do not require further mitigation.

The commenter has provided no evidence that the incorporation of PMM-AQ-1(p) would reduce the magnitude of Draft EIR Impacts 5-3 and 5-5, nor as the commenter identified what constitutes “appropriate consultations” as provided for in the commenter’s recommended mitigation language. Furthermore, the mitigation language, as proposed by the commenter, could raise enforceability issues, as the City does not have the authority to register equipment under CARB’s Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP); rather, CARB is the regulatory entity that oversees, implements, and enforces the PERP. Future projects occurring under the implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5, which require the preparation of quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analyses. Mitigation Measures 5- 3B and 5-5 specify that if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Discussions with CARB or the BAAQMD may be undertaken if a future project is unable to reduce its emissions below BAAQMD thresholds, but requiring consultations in and of themselves does not guarantee emissions reductions or a reduction in magnitude of Draft EIR Impact 5-3 and 5-5.

Incorporation of this mitigation measure is not required for the Greystar Project and would not further reduce the magnitude of Draft EIR Impact 5-3 and Impact 5-5 for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter.

Response 36: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(q), which includes recommendations that projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools use Tier IV equipment for all engines greater than 50 horsepower unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier IV engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds.

As discussed under Draft EIR Impact 5-4 (Draft EIR pg. 5-43) and Impact 5-7 (Draft EIR pg. 5-54) the Greystar Project would not result in a significant criteria air pollutant or health risk impact during construction after the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-4A and 5-4B. The less-than-significant health risk assessment determination is further affirmed by the quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Project. The less-than-significant construction impacts associated with the Greystar Project do not require further mitigation.

Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5 were identified to address programmatic impacts associated with future development that could occur within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5 require the preparation of quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Mitigation Measures 5- 3B and 5-5 specify that if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. The implementation of recommended PMM-AQ-1(q) would have no different effect in practice as Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5.

FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 14 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Incorporation of this mitigation measure is not required for the Greystar Project and would not further reduce the magnitude of Draft EIR Impact 5-3 and Impact 5-5 for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter.

Response 37: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(t), which includes recommendations that projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the EJCP, CARE, and Why Air Quality Matters programs.

As described under Section 5.1.4.1 of the Draft EIR, “the Plan Area is not located in a disadvantaged community (as designated by SB 535 or the BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program), nor is it exposed to high amounts of pollution” (Draft EIR pg. 5-11). Furthermore, there are no schools in proximity of the Plan Area that serve a younger student population, and the mitigation language proposed would not reduce any emissions from the Project.

The nearest school is Mission College, which provides educational opportunities for older teenagers and adults. The OEHHA health risk assessment methodology contains age sensitivity factors that take into account the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-life exposure. These age sensitivity factors provide a higher weighting of risks for younger members of the population (e.g., infants, children, pre-teens, and younger teens) than those of younger and older adults.

Sensitive receptors – as they relate to schools – to are for facilities that provide educational services for children and young adults (e.g., elementary, middle, and high schools). Facilities that provide educational opportunities for adults (e.g., colleges) are typically not considered sensitive receptors, particularly for construction health risk assessments. Thus, increased consideration of potential risks for students at Mission College would not be given, since it provides educational opportunities to older members of the public. It should be further noted that student receptors at colleges are transient, meaning that they move throughout the campus throughout the day while attending classes and would not be exposed to the same pollutant concentrations throughout the day and year.

The Project would not result in any potentially significant health risk impacts to students, including the college students at Mission College. Thus, the lack of a significant health risk impact at a school eliminates the need for any mitigation, such as the proposed information to the schools.

This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter. It is not applicable to the Project’s setting, nor would it reduce the magnitude of any air quality impacts associated with the Project.

Response 38: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(u), which includes recommendations that projects work with local cities and communities to install signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan and Greystar Project propose primarily residential and office land uses, which do not generate substantial number of trucks trips like other land uses, such as industrial and warehousing operations. The majority of truck trips associated with future activities within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be related to construction, which is temporary (and, as noted below, impacts would be less than significant). Therefore, it is not logical that project applicants would work with the City to install temporary signage.

FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 15 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
As discussed under Draft EIR Impact 5-4 (Draft EIR pg. 5-43) and Impact 5-7 (Draft EIR pg. 5-54) the Greystar Project would not result in a significant criteria air pollutant or health risk impact during construction after the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-4A and 5-4B. The less-than-significant health risk assessment determination is further affirmed by the quantitative construction HRA prepared for the Project. The less-than-significant construction impacts associated with the Greystar Project do not require further mitigation.

Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5 were identified to address programmatic impacts associated with future development that could occur within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5 require the preparation of quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis for future development proposed under implementation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. Mitigation Measures 5- 3B and 5-5 specify that if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, the City shall require the implementation of mitigation to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds or to the maximum extent feasible. Requirements on idling and idling times could be incorporated as requirements for projects through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5, if necessary. These requirements could include installing signage.

This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter. The Project does not propose land uses that would generate trip trick in the quantities that would result in significant health risks, is not located in proximity of any Elementary / Middle Schools, and potential impacts associated with truck operation would be addressed through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3B and 5-5. Incorporating SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(u) as a standalone mitigation measure for the Project’s EIR would not further reduce the magnitude of Draft EIR Impacts 5-3 and 5-5.

Response 39: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(y), which includes recommendations that projects locating sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources install high efficiency enhanced filtration units.

This comment relates to the environment’s impact on a project, rather than the project’s impact on the environment.

The California Supreme Court decision (December 2015) in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“CBIA v.

BAAQMD”) concluded, “[W]e hold that CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. What CEQA does mandate…is an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards.” Thus, per the Court’s ruling in CBIA v. BAAQMD, the City is not required to incorporate PMM-AQ-1(y) as recommended by the commenter.

Future projects developed within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan would be required to demonstrate consistency with the City’s General Plan, which currently includes Policy 5.10.5-P34. General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P34 requires, “projects to implement minimum setbacks of 500 feet from roadways with average daily trips of 100,000 or more and 100 feet from railroad tracks for new residential or other uses with sensitive receptors, unless a project‐specific study identifies measures, such as site design, tiered landscaping, air filtration systems, and window design, FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 16 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
to reduce exposure, demonstrating that the potential risks can be reduced to acceptable levels” (Draft EIR pg. 5-55).

SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(y) is not required for projects to comply with CEQA or General Plan Policy 5.10.5-P34 and therefore has not been incorporated as mitigation into the EIR.

Response 40: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(z), which recommends a monitoring and maintenance program for MERV filters (presumably those discussed in SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(y)). See Response 39.

Response 41: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(bb), which sets forth recommendations for equipment using diesel equipment. See Response 36.

Response 42: The commenter identifies SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(cc), which recommends various measures to increase energy efficiency, including:
improving pedestrian networks, implementing street design features to reduce traffic (e.g., traffic calming measures), creating urban non-motorized zones (including parks and public spaces), dedicating land for bike trails, limiting parking / require parking permits, and providing ride-sharing programs.

As described on Draft EIR pg. 1-2, “Pursuant to section 15150 (Incorporation By Reference) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is incorporated into this Draft EIR by reference.” The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan contains numerous goals and policies related to pedestrian and bicycle improvements, roadway design criteria to help reduce vehicle trips, and increasing transit ridership. See FC-G4, FC-G6, FC-P4 through FC-P6, FC-P7, FC-P10 through FC-P12, FC-P14, FC-P16, FC-P18 through FC-P24. The Draft EIR also includes Mitigation Measures 5-3D and 9-1A, which set forth requirements that new projects develop TDM Programs that achieve minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions. Such TDM measures could include limiting parking supply, requiring residential area parking permits, and/or providing ride-sharing programs.

This additional mitigation measure, as written, has not been incorporated into the EIR as suggested by the commenter. The commenter has not provided any evidence that SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 PMM-AQ-1(cc) would substantially lessen the magnitude of any significant impacts identified in the EIR. (See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519; Public Resource Code, § 21002; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15021, subd. (a)(2).) The street design criteria and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are included in the Focus Area Plan’s framework, and other measures related to parking supply, parking permits, and ride-sharing programs are addressed through Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 5- 3D and 9-1A.

Response 43: See Responses 32 through 42. The SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 mitigation measures recommended by the commenter are either included or incorporated through existing mitigation identified in the EIR, are covered under the framework of the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan, would not substantially lessen the magnitude of any significant impacts, or are not applicable to the Project at all.

The EIR has not incorporated any of the mitigation measures recommended by the commenter. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR fully, accurately, FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 17 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
and appropriately address potential impacts, and mitigate them consistent with CEQA requirements.

Response 44: Comment noted.

General Plan Consistency Response
The 2035 General Plan includes three Future Focus Areas. All the requirements set forth in the General Plan relating to Future Focus Areas concerns these three existing Future Focus Areas.

For these three existing Future Focus Areas, the General Plan includes discussion and policies concerning the development of comprehensive planning for these areas. In adopting policies relating to these three Future Focus Areas as part of the existing General Plan, the City exercised its discretion to prohibit any specific project from moving forward within these three Future Focus Areas until after comprehensive planning was completed.

Freedom Circle is not one of the three ex isting Future Focus Areas included in the General Plan. The General Plan does not state that, should the City exercise its discretion to create Additional Future Focus Areas, those Additional Future Focus Areas must be made subject to all the same requirements as the three Future Focus Areas included in current General Plan.

Therefore, in proposing to identify Freedom Circle as an Additional Future Focus Area, the City has the discretion to create new policies relating to it and other Additional Future Focus Areas that may be proposed by the City in the future.

As explained in the EIR, the City has proposed adding Policy 5.4.7-P11 to the General Plan, which allows for the creation of Additional Future Focus Areas and also allows the City to exercise its discretion to allow for General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed at that the same time as an Additional Focus Area is created. For example, the City may choose to exercise its discretion to allow for General Plan and Zoning amendments to proceed concurrently for an Additional Focus Area, where a Future Focus Area is made up of numerous property owners and only a subset of those property owners is prepared to move forward to specific project applications as was the case with Freedom Circle and Greystar. In such circumstances, the City may determine that delaying an application for a specific development project is not appropriate for one or more reasons such as, for example, where due to the location or use proposed by an applicant the City believes the use can move forward concurrently with the comprehensive planning without negatively impacting the ability to comprehensively plan the Additional Future Focus Area or where the City determines the use, if developed, should be developed in the near term. For Greystar, as demonstrated in the EIR, the Project can be implemented without negatively impacting comprehensive planning of the entire Additional Future Focus Area. Moreover, the Greystar Project proposes over 1,000 new homes. Given the local need and state objective to produce more housing, City staff believes the uses proposed in Greystar further supports the City Council exercising its discretion to allow the project to move forward concurrently with comprehensive planning of this Additional Future Focus Area.

City Staff, however, acknowledges that minor clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments may help to avoid confusion concerning the differences between existing Future Focus Areas and Additional Future Focus Areas such as Freedom Circle. Therefore, City Staff proposes the following clarifications to the proposed General Plan Amendments:

Text under section 5.4.7, Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies:
“In addition to the three Future Focus Areas identified in the General Plan as adopted on November 16, 2010, Aadditional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. Subject to the discretion provided pursuant to Policy 5.4.7-P11, tThe creation of an Additional FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Page 18 Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.”
Policy 5.4.7-P11:

Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Additional Future Focus Areas.

Biology Response
MIG prepared a memorandum in addition to this one that provides an updated biological setting for the Greystar Project parcels, based on a site visit conducted in April 2022 (MIG 2022). See that memorandum for additional details regarding comments related to biological resources. The Smallwood letter repeats numerous arguments addressed in the Final EIR, and many of the arguments are based on Smallwood’s claim that the biological site visit is too old or otherwise inaccurate. While CEQA’s baseline is generally when the NOP was issued, an additional site visit was nevertheless completed in order to confirm whether conditions have substantially changed in a way that could impact the environmental conclusions in the EIR. As explained in the updated biological setting memorandum, the site visit confirms the conclusions reached in the EIR.

References
The following references were used to prepare this memorandum:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. December 2021. Available online:
https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf City of Santa Clara. 2010. 2010-2035 General Plan. Adopted November 16, 2010. Available online:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/56139/636619791319700 000
______. 2011. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clara 2010- 2035 General Plan. January 2011. Available online:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12900/635713044859030 000
______. 2013. City of Santa Clara Climate Action Plan. Adopted December 3, 2013. Available online:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10170/635713044859030 000
______. 2021. Environmental Impact Report for Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment. SCH# 2020060425. November 2021.

MIG, Inc. (MIG). 2022. Memorandum. Re: Updated Biological Setting for the Greystar Parcels in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan. From Tay Peterson, MIG, to John Davidson, City of Santa Clara. May 11, 2022.
## PG / CD
FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Attachment A Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Attachment A
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo April 13, 2022, Planning Commission Letter FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Attachment A Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

3826-007acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
KENDRA D. HARTMANN*
DARIEN K. KEY
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
MICHAEL R. SEVILLE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
*Not admitted in Califor nia.

Lic
ensed in Colorado.

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOU
TH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper

April 13, 2022
Via Email Submission
Santa Clara Planning Commission
1500 Warburton Ave.

Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
John Davidson
Principal Planner

Email: [email protected]
Andrew Crabtree
Director, Planning & Inspection Dept.

Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 4 (22-259): Comments on the Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project
Honorable Members of the Plan
ning Commission:

We write on behalf of Silicon Valley Residents for Responsible Development (“Silicon Valley Residents”) to provide comments on Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project (“Project”), which appears as Item 4 (22- 259) on the Agenda for the April 13, 2022 Santa Clara Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission will consider whether to adopt resolutions recommending (1) approval of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and an associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); (2) adoption of General Plan amendments; and (3) rezoning for the Greystar site (collectively, “approvals”).

The Freedom Circle Focus Area would allow, subject to a future planning study, 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar General Plan Amendment, and an additional 2 million square feet of additional office space. The Focus Area is 108 gross acres bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Great America Parkway to the west, Great America Theme Park to the north and Highway 101 to the south.

Post Meeting Material
Planning Commission
Meeting
April 13, 2022
Item 4
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
The Greystar Project, evaluated in the EIR at the project level, proposes development of three buildings with 1,075 residential units and 2,000 square feet of retail space, plus a 2.0-acre park. The 13.3-acre Greystar site lies within the Freedom Circle Focus Area and is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, Freedom Circle to the West, and Highway 101 in Santa Clara.

The Project requires the following approvals: (1) determination of the adequacy of the EIR prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts for the project and an associated MMRP; (2) adoption of a General Plan text amendment to add language regarding the creation of additional Future Focus Areas, the re-designation of land outside of Focus Areas, creation of the new Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (“R&D”) designation, and adoption of a General Plan Amendment to create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area; (3) adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment from High Intensity Office/R&D (maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51- 100 Dwelling Unit/Acre; and (4) adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar site, which would allow up to 1,100 units on a 13.3 gross acre site bounded by Freedom Circle to the west, Mission College Boulevard to the north, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east and Highway 101 to the south. As will be explained below, the above approvals will result in inconsistencies with the Santa Clara General Plan.

On December 20, 2021, Silicon Valley Residents submitted comments on the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) prepared for the Project. On March 30, 2022, the City released the Final EIR (“FEIR”), which revises the DEIR and includes responses to our comments. As will be explained below, the FEIR fails to remedy the issues identified in our initial comments. We prepared our responses to the FEIR with the assistance of air quality and health risk experts from Soil / Water / Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”),1 and biological resources expert Shawn Smallwood, PhD.2 For these reasons, Silicon Valley Residents urges the Planning Commission to recommend against adopting the Project’s Approvals at the Planning Commission meeting set for April 13, 2022. Silicon Valley Residents urges the Planning Commission to remand the FEIR back to Staff to allow for preparation of a legally adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA.
1 SWAPE’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 Dr. Smallwood’s reply comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
I. The Project’s General Plan Amendment Related to Future Focus Areas Is Internally Inconsistent
The Project includes designation of the Freedom Circle Focus Area, which would allow, subject to a future planning study, 2,500 dwelling units beyond those anticipated in the Greystar General Plan Amendment, and an additional 2 million square feet of additional office space. The Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan is defined as a “focus area plan,” which is one of several policy and regulatory tools used by the City of Santa Clara to implement the City’s 2010-2035 General Plan. A focus area plan provides a foundation for the future comprehensive, detailed planning study (or “comprehensive plan,” such as a specific plan) necessary to be adopted prior to allowing development in the Plan Area. A focus area plan provides a preliminary analysis of land use, utilities, streets, services, parks, and other public facilities as part of a coordinated planning process established to determine new infrastructure and service needs adequate to support future development and to plan for timing of development appropriate to sustain environmental quality.

The Project proposes to establish the Freedom Circle Focus Area via a General Plan Amendment. In order to establish the Focus Area through an Amendment, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment that would add the following text to the General Plan (under section “5.4.7 Future Focus Areas Goals and Policies”):

In addition to the three Future Focus Areas, additional Future Focus Areas may be added to the General Plan Land Use diagram through the General Plan Amendment process. The creation of a Future Focus Area is a precursor to the comprehensive planning process required for all Focus Areas.

This General Plan Amendment is inconsistent with General Plan Goals. Goal

5.4.7‐G1 provides: “All applicable prerequisites are met, and a comprehensive plan is adopted, prior to implementation of any Future Focus Area.” It is contradictory to require a comprehensive plan prior to implementation of a Future Focus Area, while also stating the creation of a Future Focus Area precedes a comprehensive plan.
3 The Planning Commission should recommend against approval of this General Plan amendment.
3 General Plan Section 8.2-18: Implementation – “Actions, procedures, programs or techniques that carry out policies.”
General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
II. The Project’s Rezoning and Related General Plan Amendment Potentially Conflict With the General Plan
The Greystar Project would require rezoning the Project site from high- intensity office/R&D to high-density residential. But rezoning at this time conflicts with the General Plan, as the General Plan prohibits rezoning in future focus areas before a comprehensive plan (i.e. specific plan) is adopted for the future focus area:

Policy 5.4.7‐P1: “Require the adoption of the comprehensive plan prior to any rezoning within that designated Future Focus Area.”
Policy 5.4.7‐P4 states: “Until such time as a comprehensive plan is adopted for a Future Focus Area, allow development in accordance with the land use designations on the Phase II General Plan Land Use Diagram.” Here, a comprehensive plan has not yet been prepared, yet the proposed rezoning would occur in what would be a Future Focus Area. Thus, the rezoning conflicts with the General Plan.

The Project includes the following General Plan Amendment, which purports to ensure the rezoning is consistent with the General Plan:

Policy 5.4.7-P11 Allow for General Plan Amendments and rezonings outside of existing Future Focus Areas in combination with the designation of new Future Focus Areas.

It is unclear how this General Plan Amendment would resolve the issue of rezoning prior to comprehensive planning, as the new Policy does not waive the prerequisite comprehensive planning. Allowing for General Plan Amendments and rezonings in combination with Future Focus Areas while also prohibiting rezoning without prerequisite comprehensive planning would be an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. It is also inconsistent with the City’s intent in adopting the current General Plan, which is to ensure proper planning for Future Focus Areas.

The Project’s proposed Policy 5.4.7-P11 is also structurally inconsistent with General Plan policies listed above because this Policy undermines the General Plan’s goals for cohesive development in Focus Areas:

General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Goal 5.1.1‐G1 states: “Cohesive, integrated planning that restrains premature development prior to the necessary supportive infrastructure has been programmed for each phase of the Progressive General Plan.” Goal 5.4.7‐G1 states: “All applicable prerequisites are met, and a comprehensive plan is adopted, prior to implementation of any Future Focus Area.”
And as stated in the DEIR:

Comprehensive planning is a prerequisite for new development in Santa Clara, and Focus Areas have been identified throughout the city to support and foster a diverse economic and cultural base by encouraging improvements and new development tailored to each area’s character and the quality of these areas. Future Focus Areas are intended to continue to support community vitality, and all Future Focus Areas require a detailed, comprehensive plan prior to any development approval.
4 By allowing rezoning before comprehensive planning has occurred, the General Plan Amendment weakens the effectiveness of the Focus Area. As a result, the rezoning and the General Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan.

III. Prerequisite Planning and Studies Are Required Before the Greystar Project is Approved
General Plan Policy 5.1.1‐P8 provides: “Prior to approval of residential development for Phase III in any Future Focus Area, complete a comprehensive plan for each area that specifies: [land uses, street system, community design, infrastructure and utilities, etc.].” The DEIR acknowledges that the Freedom Circle Focus Area would be subject to requirements for Phase III development:

The Freedom Circle Focus Area (upon approval of the proposed General Plan amendment) would be added as a Phase III Focus Area to the General Plan (Section 5.4.7, and any change in land use designation or rezoning of land within the Freedom Circle area would be subject to the requirements of the 4 DEIR, pg. 3-12.

General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Future Focus Area Goals and Policies of the General Plan, as amended (see above).
5 However, the City argues that the Greystar Project is not subject to the Phase III requirements:

Although projects identified for Phase III of the General Plan require the City to perform the necessary Phase III prerequisite studies as part of the planning process, there is no near-term timeframe limit during which a Future Focus Area can be considered, which would allow for the Greystar project to be developed concurrently with the Focus Area planning process.

This reasoning is unclear and does not resolve the General Plan inconsistency. The Planning Commission should recommend against approval of the Greystar Project until a comprehensive plan has been prepared.

IV. The City Fails to Conduct a Quantitative Health Risk Analysis In our initial comments, we explained that the City’s failure to conduct a quantitative health risk analysis violates CEQA. By failing to analyze and disclose key information such as the magnitude of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) generated by the Project, and the concentration of DPM by sensitive receptors, the City fails to meet CEQA’s informational and analytical standards for EIRs. As the Court explained in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.” 6 In the FEIR, the City responds that analysis and disclosure of this information is not necessary. The City reasons that “[g]iven that the Greystar project would not result in a significant health risk impact, nor has the commenter provided any evidence that such an impact would occur, it is not necessary for the Draft EIR to explain in substantial detail the specific magnitude to which receptors could be adversely affected by exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentrations.”7
5 DEIR, pg. 3-12.
6 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
7 FEIR, response L4.31.

General
Plan
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
The City’s reasoning is flawed, as SWAPE’s screenin g-level HRA shows the Project has potentially significant health risk impacts. This is substantial evidence that triggers the need for disclosure and analysis of the magnitude and concentrations of DPM.

The City argues that the HRA is not supported by substantial evidence, identifying elements of the screening-level HRA that are not representative of project-specific conditions. However, the City misconstrues the purpose of a screening-level HRA: the screening-level assessment conservatively evaluates the Project’s impacts to determine whether more rigorous analysis is necessary. As stated in SWAPE’s initial comments: “[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.” 8 Thus,
the City’s critique of SWAPE’s HRA does not affect its conclusion that a more rigorous quantitative analysis is justified.

V. The EIR Relies on Nonbinding Air Quality Mitigation
The EIR states that the proposed Greystar Project would not result in significant air quality impacts during construction activities.9 The DEIR assumes that all heavy-duty off-road equipment would meet either U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or IV emissions standards: the Applicant provided a list of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the Greystar Project, and all listed equipment meets meet either U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or IV emissions standards.10 But use of Tier III and IV equipment is not included in the Project’s MMRP. As a result, this mitigation is not binding. CEQA requires that mitigation measures that are adopted by an agency must be enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts, or other means that are legally binding.11 The MMRP must be revised to explicitly require the Greystar project to use Tier III or IV equipment as described in the Applicant’s list. Therefore, potentially significant air quality impacts during construction activities remain unmitigated and the FEIR’s conclusions must be revised and recirculated for public review. 8 SWAPE initial comments, pg. 11.
9 DEIR, pg. 5-48.
10 DEIR, pg. 5-44.
11 Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b).

April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
VI. The DEIR Conceals Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts by Disguising Mitigation Measures as Project Design Features
When the EIR describes the Greystar Project’s construction emissions impacts, its disclosure of “unmitigated” emissions assumes use of Tier III or IV construction equipment. The EIR reasons that the Applicant provided a list of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the Greystar Project, and that the listed equipment meets meet either U.S. EPA / CARB Tier III or IV emissions standards.
12 But under CEQA, it is improper to attempt to disguise mitigation measures as part of the project’s design if this obfuscates the potential significance of environmental impacts.13 In Lotus v. Department of Transportation, an EIR prepared by the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) contained measures to help minimize potential stress on redwood trees during highway construction, such as restorative planting, invasive plant removal, watering, and use of an arborist and specialized excavation equipment.14 The Court of Appeal held that because the EIR relied on these measures to reduce adverse impacts, they were actually mitigation measures.15 The Court of Appeal held that the EIR improperly compressed the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue because the EIR did not designate the measures as mitigation and concluded that because of the measures, no significant impacts were anticipated.16 As in Lotus, the EIR improperly compresses the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue. Just as measures like restorative planting and invasive plant removal are not project design features of a highway construction project because their purpose are to reduce adverse impacts, use of Tier III and IV equipment is not a design feature because it reduces adverse emission impacts. By assuming use of Tier III and IV equipment when disclosing the Project’s impacts, the EIR avoids disclosing significant impacts. The City must reconduct the air quality analysis, GHG analysis, and health risk analysis so that 12 DEIR, pg. 5-44.
13 Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (compression of mitigation measures into project design without acknowledging potentially significant impact if effects were not mitigated violates CEQA)
14 Id. at 650.
15 Id. Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 16 Id. at 656.

April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
the Project’s unmitigated impacts are accurately disclosed. Also, as explained above, the City must include use of Tier III and IV equipment in the MMRP. Once these errors are corrected, the EIR must be recirculated.

VII. The EIR Fails To Adequately Analyze and Mitigate All Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources
In our initial comments, we explained that the EIR’s description of the Greystar site’s biological baseline is not supported by substantial evidence. First, the EIR fails to substantiate any details of its site visit, so it is unknown who performed the survey, methods used, the time of day when the survey began, how long the survey lasted, which portion of the Project site was covered, and weather conditions during the survey. As a result, the EIR lacks substantial evidence that the baseline is as described. Second, the EIR assumes, without scientific evidentiary support (i.e., substantial evidence), that because the Greystar site is disturbed, it has low habitat value. Conversely, Dr. Smallwood’s report provides photographic evidence that wildlife forages, nests, and moves through the site.

Third, whereas the EIR claimed the site lacked burrows, Dr. Smallwood’s site visit detected several burrow systems of California ground squirrels on the project site, which demonstrates that the site contains potential habitat for burrowing owls, and foraging grounds for carnivores. Fourth, the City failed to consult all available biological resources databases to establish which species are potentially present, even overlooking species actually seen at the Greystar site.

The City does not resolve these issues in any way in the FEIR. Dr.

Smallwood’s reply comments explain that the City’s claims regarding the sufficiency of its analysis are flawed, and the City’s environmental baseline is still not supported by substantial evidence. These errors require the City to revise its environmental setting, conduct new biological surveys, and analyze and mitigate impacts on the full spectrum of potentially present species.

VIII. Conclusion
The Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of the Project until the City complies with CEQA by preparing a legally adequate EIR for the Project.

The Project still has potentially significant impacts to public health, air quality, climate change, and biological resources, all of which remain unmitigated. The Project relies on several General Plan amendments that result in internal inconsistencies within the General Plan. Silicon Valley Residents urges the Biology
Comment
April 13, 2022

3826-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Planning Commission to remand the FEIR back to Staff to allow for preparation of a legally adequate EIR and recirculation to the public, as required by CEQA.

S i n c e r e l y ,
A i d a n P . M a r s h a l l
Attachments
APM:acp

EXHIBIT A

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]
April 13, 2022
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: C omments on the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (SCH No. 2020060425)
Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have reviewed the March 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the November 2021 Public Release Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar Project General Plan Amendment (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Clara (“City”).

After our review of the FEIR, we find that the FEIR is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. Furthermore, we find additional errors within the DEIR’s air quality analysis. As asserted in our December 17th comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts.

Air Quality
Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DEIR concludes that the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be significant- and-unavoidable (p. 5-41). Specifically, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s operational NOX and ROG emissions would exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds (see excerpt below) (p. 5-40, Table 5-16).

2 As a result, the DEIR determines that the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be significant-and-unavoidable (p. 5-41). The DEIR states:
“Despite the implementation of these mitigation measures, growth allowed for under the Focus Area Plan would still be substantially more than that accounted for in the City’s General Plan and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment. This impact would be significant and unavoidable” (p. 5-41).

However, while we agree that the Project’s operational emissions would result in a significant air quality impact, the DEIR’s conclusion that these impacts are “significant and unavoidable” is incorrect.

According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
As demonstrated above, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure (“MM”) 5-3C and 5- 3D, which require the use of low- and super-compliant VOC architectural coatings as well as the development of a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) program, the DEIR and FEIR both fail to implement all feasible mitigation (p. 2.4-21). Thus, the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s operational criteria air pollutant impacts are significant-and-unavoidable is unsubstantiated. To reduce

3 air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” Thus, the Project should not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

Insufficient Mitigation Measure to Reduce Operational Air Quality Emissions Regarding the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions, the DEIR states:
“Despite the Focus Area Plan being served by frequent bus service via VTA Routes 20, 57, and 59 and featuring many amenities to help reduce trips within the Plan Area (i.e., people could walk or bike to their destination), emissions from mobile sources would still remain a substantial source of emissions associated with buildout of the Focus Area Plan. As described in Section

5.1.3.1, the SFBAAB is designated as non-attainment for ozone, and NOx and ROG/VOCs are precursors to ozone (see Section 5.1.1.1). The SFBAAB is also designated as nonattainment for state PM10 and state and federal PM2.5 air quality standards. Accordingly, the City would implement Mitigation Measure 5-3D, which requires future development within the Plan Area to develop and implement a TDM program, consistent with the City of Santa Clara’s 2013 Climate Action Plan (see Chapter 9) and 2010-2035 General Plan (City of Santa Clara 2010, 2013)” (p. 5-40).

As demonstrated above, the DEIR incorporates MM 5-3D, which states:
“Proposed residential and office land uses within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan shall prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that achieve a minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions (i.e., without internal or external reductions accounted for, such as geographic location, land use interconnectivity, etc.), with at least 10 percent of the reduction coming through project-specific TDM measures (e.g., transit subsidies, telecommuting options, etc.)” (p. 5-43).

However, MM 5-3D is insufficient. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B), a lead agency must identify “the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.” 1 While MM 5-
3D offers examples of TDM reduction measures (i.e. transit subsidies, telecommuting options), MM 5-3D fails to tangibly consider potential actions that could achieve the measure’s performance standard.

Thus, despite including a performance standard of reducing the Project’s anticipated vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) by 20% compared to baseline conditions, with at least 10% coming through project- specific TDM measures, MM 5-3D fails to formally include actions that could be used to achieve this standard. As such, MM 5-3D is inadequate per CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B), and the DEIR and

1 “2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines.” Association of Environmental Professionals, available at:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2019_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf, p. 194. 4 FEIR both inadequately address and mitigate the Project’s significant mobile-source operational emissions.

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact As discussed in our December 17th comment letter, the DEIR failed to adequately evaluate the proposed Project’s potential health risk impacts. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As such, we find the FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the DEIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon for five reasons.

First, regarding the construction-related DPM emission rate, the FEIR states:
“The construction emissions rate for DPM derived by the commenter appears to be a combination of both on- and off-site emissions (e.g., trucks hauling materials to and from the site)” (p. 2-301).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR claims that SWAPE’s HRA accounted for both on-site and off-site emissions during Project construction. This is incorrect. In order to calculate the construction-related DPM emission rate, we utilized the mitigated annual criteria air pollutant emissions summary, provided in the Supplemental Air Quality/GHG Information as Appendix 25.2 to the DEIR. Review of this summary demonstrates that almost no on-road mobile emissions were accounted for (see excerpt below) (pp. 1274, Table 2-2).

As such, the DPM emission rate utilized by SWAPE almost entirely accounts for off-road construction equipment located on-site. Thus, the DPM emissions rate is not overestimated.

5 Second, the FEIR states:
“The screening level HRA indicates that it uses PM10 exhaust estimates, while BAAQMD recommends using PM2.5 exhaust estimates (BAAQMD Guidelines, pg. 8-8)” (p. 2-301).

After further review of BAAQMD guidelines, we agree that PM2.5 exhaust estimates should have been utilized. However, review of the above-mentioned emissions summary demonstrates that the construction-related PM10 exhaust estimates and PM2.5 exhaust estimates are the almost identical (see excerpt below) (pp. 1274, Table 2-2).

As such, the construction-related emissions estimates utilized in SWAPE’s screening-level HRA are an accurate representation of Project-generated PM2.5 emissions, as recommended by BAAQMD guidance.

Regarding the operational emissions estimates, we acknowledge that PM10 exhaust emissions were incorrectly used in our screening-level HRA. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” model calculated 0.1107 tons/year of PM10 exhaust and 0.1088 tons/year of PM2.5 exhaust (see excerpt below) (Appendix 25.2, pp. 1152).

6 As such, the difference between operational PM10 exhaust emissions and PM2.5 exhaust emissions is only

0.0019 tons/year. Thus, the difference is negligible.

Third, the FEIR states:
“The operational emissions estimate used by the commenter came from the Greystar Project (2030) Unmitigated CalEEMod run. The Greystar Project would be subject to mitigation that would reduce emissions” (p. 2-301).

However, the FEIR’s claim that we utilized unmitigated operational emissions estimates is incorrect. As indicated above, we utilized the mitigated operational emissions estimates calculated in the “Greystar Residential Development (2030; Mitigated)” model (Appendix 25.2, pp. 1152).

Fourth, regarding the operational DPM emission rate, the FEIR states:
“The operational emissions rate derived by the commenter incorrectly assumes that all PM2.5 exhaust emissions from the Project (i.e., from area, energy, and mobile sources) would be 100 percent DPM, and that all the Project’s emissions would occur within the 13.3-acre area” (p. 2- 302).

Furthermore, the FEIR states:
“[I]t is not appropriate to assume all mobile source emissions would be generated within the

13.3-acre Project site, as reflected in the emissions rate and, ultimately, the area modeled by the commenter. Mobile sources would operate primarily outside of the Plan Area, distributing the same quantity of pollutants over a greater area and resulting in lower concentrations than that assumed by the commenter” (p. 2-302).

We acknowledge that the operational DPM emission rate utilized by SWAPE is overestimated. As the DEIR and associated documents did not provide the on-site DPM emissions associated with Project

7 operation, we were unable to calculate a more precise emission rate. Regardless, we have included our screening-level HRA below, now only accounting for construction emissions, in order to not artificially inflate the Project’s cancer risk (see table below).2
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions
Source
Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-day)
Cancer Risk
(without ASFs*) ASF Cancer Risk
(with ASFs*)
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.2212 361 2.56E-07 10 2.56E-06 Infant
(Age 0 - 2) Construction 2 0.2212 1090 6.18E-06 10 6.18E-05 Construction 1.75 0.2212 572 2.40E-06
Operation 12.25 * 572 *
Child
(Age 2 - 16) Total 14 * 3 *
Adult
(Age 16 - 30) Operation 14 * 261 * 1 *
Lifetime 30 6.43E-06 6.43E-05
* Operational cancer risk not accounted for.

As you can see in the excerpt above, the excess cancer risk over the course of Project construction is

64.3 in one million, which still exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR or FEIR.

To conclude, we reiterate our December 17th comment that our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.3 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. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

2 Methodology discussed in SWAPE’s December 17th comment letter. 3 “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. 1-5 8 The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.”4 As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Because our screening-level HRA demonstrates that the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, the City should prepare an updated, refined quantitative health risk analysis which more accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a significant air quality impact 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 Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”), as described below: 5 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:
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. 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.

4 “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined.” U.S. EPA, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined. 5 “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. 9 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. 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. bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
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
10 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.

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 operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

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 11 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: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021

Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Attachment B Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
Attachment B
Greystar General Plan Amendment Project Quantitative Construction Health Risk Assessment
FCFAP and Greystar GPA: Post-Planning Commission EIR Memo Attachment B Air Quality Comments
MIG Memorandum May 12, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Memo
To: John Davidson and Alexander Abbe, City of Santa Clara CC: Ray Pendro, MIG, and Chris Butcher, Thomas Law Group From: Phil Gleason and Chris Dugan
Date: May 11, 2022
SUBJECT: Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction Health Risk Assessment This memorandum describes the methodology and results of a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment Project. This memorandum has been prepared to further affirm the significance conclusions drawn in the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan/Greystar General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2020060425; City of Santa Clara 2021). As explained in this memorandum, construction emission associated with the proposed project would not result in cancerogenic health risks that exceed the BAAQMD-recommended significance threshold of 10 excess cancers per million population.

Project Description
The Greystar Project proposes the development of three buildings with 1,075 residential units and 2,000 square feet of retail space, plus a 2.0-acre park. The 13.3-acre Greystar site lies within the Freedom Circle Focus Area and is bounded by San Tomas Aquino Creek to the east, Freedom Circle to the west, and Highway 101 in Santa Clara.

Construction activities associated with development of the proposed Greystar Project would generally include: clearing and grubbing; mass excavation; structural concrete work, including structural framing and rough in; and exterior / interior work, including structural framing / rough in and site work / landscaping. In total, construction of the Greystar Project is anticipated to last approximately 48 months, beginning in the middle of 2023 and concluding in the middle of 2027, and require the net off-haul of approximately 71,500 cubic yards of soil. 1 The specific types of
heavy-duty, off-road equipment would vary between the construction phases, depending on the types of activities being undertaken, but would require the use of backhoes, graders, excavators, mini excavators, scrapers, bulldozers, cranes, telehandlers (e.g., Gradalls), and tractors / loaders. The Applicant, Greystar, provided a list of the heavy-duty off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the Greystar Project, as well as the number of hauling and vendor trips that are anticipated per construction phase. Attachment 1 provides a full breakdown of the construction schedule, heavy-duty equipment operating characteristics by phase, and worker, vendor, and hauling trip details, as provided by Greystar. 1 The Applicant, Greystar, has indicated that the project’s timeline has been delayed by approximately one year. The date ranges presented in this memorandum are approximately one year later than that presented in the EIR. Other construction parameters (e.g., hauling, vendor, worker trips; off-road equipment operating characteristics; etc.) were also confirmed with the Applicant prior to initiating the health risk analysis contained in this memorandum.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 2 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Modeling Methodology
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate on- and off-site exhaust emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), in the form of PM2.5. The specific quantity of emissions emitted at any given time would be dependent on the type and number of pieces of equipment operating, the equipment’s engine classification, the equipment’s horsepower, and the load the engine is under. Off-site emissions would be generated from haul trucks used to export waste and soil to and from the site and from vendor trips used to deliver construction materials (e.g., rebar, concrete, lumber, etc.) to the site. This analysis also includes potential DPM emissions that could be generated by workers commuting to and from the site.

The U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model (version 21112) was used to predict pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive residential receptors (Santa Clara Square Apartments) located approximately 770 feet southwest of the Greystar Project site.2 The AERMOD dispersion model is an EPA-approved and BAAQMD-recommended model for simulating the dispersion of pollutant emissions and estimating concentrations of pollutants at specified receptor locations. AERMOD requires the user to input information on the source(s) of pollutants being modeled, the receptors where pollutant concentrations are modeled, and the meteorology, terrain, and other factors that affect the potential dispersion of pollutants. These variables are described below.

Modeled Construction Sources / Emission Rates
On- and off-site construction emissions were modeled as a series of area and line area sources, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
2 This is the distance from the Greystar Project’s southern property line to the receptor location. The majority of construction activities at the Greystar Project site would take place 1,200 feet or more from these receptors Table 1: AERMOD Source Parameters
Source ID Source Description UTM Coordinates(A) Size
(m2) X Y
PAREA01 Year 1: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA02 Year 1: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA03 Year 1: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA04 Year 1: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA05 Year 1: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 PAREA06 Year 1: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA07 Year 1: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA08 Year 1: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA09 Year 1: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA10 Year 1: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA11 Year 1: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 PAREA12 Year 2: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA13 Year 2: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA14 Year 2: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA15 Year 2: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA16 Year 2: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 3 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 1: AERMOD Source Parameters
Source ID Source Description UTM Coordinates(A) Size
(m2) X Y
PAREA17 Year 2: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA18 Year 2: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA19 Year 2: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA20 Year 2: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA21 Year 2: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA22 Year 2: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 PAREA23 Year 3: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA24 Year 3: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA25 Year 3: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA26 Year 3: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA27 Year 3: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 PAREA28 Year 3: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA29 Year 3: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA30 Year 3: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA31 Year 3: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA32 Year 3: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA33 Year 3: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 PAREA34 Year 4: On-site Building C (North) 591229.6 4138492.0 5,506.5 PAREA35 Year 4: On-site Building C (Central) 591192.3 4138390.8 5,500.0 PAREA36 Year 4: On-site Building C (South) 591171.6 4138327.1 3,253.6 PAREA37 Year 4: On-site Park (North) 591172.3 4138312.9 4,976.9 PAREA38 Year 4: On-site Park (South) 591173.2 4138258.9 4,230.8 PAREA39 Year 4: On-site Building B (North) 591168.6 4138230.3 6,551.7 PAREA40 Year 4: On-site Building B (Central) 591125.4 4138173.2 5,717.4 PAREA41 Year 4: On-site Building B (South) 591147.1 4138130.4 5,150.2 PAREA42 Year 4: On-site Building A (North) 591161.4 4138088.3 4,818.2 PAREA43 Year 4: On-site Building A (Central) 591151.9 4138051.6 4,811.5 PAREA44 Year 4: On-site Building A (South) 591143.4 4138020.1 5,891.6 ARLN01 Year 1: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN02 Year 1: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) ARLN03 Year 2: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN04 Year 2: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) ARLN05 Year 3: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN06 Year 3: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) ARLN07 Year 4: Off-site East of Site 591150.7 4138204.3 2,054.2(B) ARLN08 Year 4: Off-site West of Site 590233.5 4138214.6 2,461.0(B) (A) UTM coordinates represent the northwest corner of the source. (B) Reflects length of line area source in meters.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 4 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Figure 1: Modeled Construction Emissions Sources
Consistent with BAAQMD-recommendations, PM2.5 construction exhaust emissions were presumed to be 100 percent DPM.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 5 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
The HRA conducted for the Project evaluates health risks for two emissions scenarios. • EIR Scenario 1 (Emissions from Tier III and Tier IV Equipment): Potential PM2.5 exhaus
t emissions from the operation of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, excavators, etc.) were estimated using U.S. EPA Tier III and IV emission factors. The specific emissions factor applied to each piece of off-road equipment was based on information provided by Greystar. This scenario is consistent with the methodology utilized to estimate emissions in the EIR.
• OFFROAD2021Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet Emissions): To develop the emission factors associated with each piece of off-road construction equipment that would be needed for the project under this scenario, OFFROAD20213 was first used to generate an emissions inventory for the Santa Clara County “Construction and Mining” industrial category for the year 2022.4 Equipment was aggregated to include all model years. This approach allows for the identification of typical characteristics for off-road vehicle equipment in the county. The emissions inventory provided the total pollutant emissions (in tons per day) and equipment activity in the county (in annual horsepower- hours (hp-hrs)). Total daily pollutant emissions were then multiplied by 365 (to convert to tons per year), converted to grams, and then divided by total hp-hrs to derive an emissions rate in terms of grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr) for each vehicle classification (e.g., excavators, graders, etc.) and horsepower bin (e.g., 100 hp to 175 hp). To estimate the total mass of PM

2.5 emissions from a piece of off-road construction
equipment, the equipment’s horsepower was multiplied by the emissions factor (g/hp-hr), its total daily runtime hours, its engine load factor, and the anticipated duration of use (in days).
5 Mobi
le source emissions (i.e., from on-road sources – hauling, vendor, and worker trips) were estimated using EMFAC2021 emissions factors for Santa Clara County in year 2022.

Attachment 1 contains additional details regarding the number of trips and trip distances. The on-road mobile source emissions were the same for both Scenarios 1 and 2.

The emissions inventories for Scenarios 1 and 2 were utilized to develop an emissions factor for each source identified in Table 1. Total mass emissions were assigned to each project element (i.e., on-site emissions for Building A, Building, B, Building C, and Park; and off-site emissions) based on detailed phasing information provided by Greystar. For example, as shown in Attachment 1, the project would generally be constructed such that Building A would be finished first, followed by Building B, then Building C, and finally the Park. Emissions estimates were assigned to each project element on a monthly basis, based on where construction activities were taking place that month and where vendor materials would be used onsite. A portion of the 3 OFFROAD2021 is CARB’s database of off-road diesel vehicles and equipment information (e.g., population, age, activity levels, emission rates) and associated emissions levels for different geographic regions (e.g., at the air basin, air district, county, or statewide level). OFFROAD2021 is composed of 18 primary industrial categories, one of which is “Construction and Mining.” The equipment associated with each industrial category is broken down into sub-classifications based on equipment type and horsepower bin. For example, under the “Construction and Mining” category, there are several types of construction equipment listed (e.g., bore/drill rigs, excavators, graders) broken down by engine horsepower ranges (e.g., 75 hp to 100 hp, 100 hp to 175 hp).
4 Although construction is not anticipated to begin until 2023, the emissions estimates for this scenario conservatively use equipment characteristics from year 2022. This is conservative, because in later years off-road equipment would, on average, be cleaner burning (i.e., emit less pollutants) than equipment in 2022. 5 This is the same methodology employed in the EIR for developing off-road equipment emissions rates and mass emissions for criteria air pollutants not affected by Tier III and Tier IV emissions standards; namely reactive organic gases (ROG) and sulfur oxides (SOx).

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 6 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
hauling and vendor emissions were also added to on-site sources to reflect on-road vehicles operating within the project site itself (e.g., a haul truck driving on-site to receive a new load).6 Emissions, by project element, were then summed on an annual basis, based on linear years of construction,7 and converted to an average emissions rate in terms of grams / second per hour of construction activity.8 Mass emissions from the various project elements were split across two-to-three sources due to the relatively large area in which construction activities would take place for each project element (i.e., several acres per project element).

On-site DPM emissions were modeled as area sources with a release height of five (5) meters (m); this elevated source height reflects the height of the equipment exhaust pipes, plus an additional distance for the height of the exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for the plume rise of the exhaust gases. The Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) recommends a release height of 5 meters. Since the BAAQMD does not have a recommended release height for PM

2.5 exhaust emissions generated by construction
equipment, the SMAQMD’s release height has been used instead (SMAQMD 2013).

Off-
site DPM emissions from vehicles were modeled as line area source with a release height of

4.15 meters, the approximate height of a truck exhaust.9 Mobile source emissions were generally split evenly between roadway segments west of the site (i.e., Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard, and Bowers Avenue west of the site) and east of the site (i.e., Freedom Circle, Mission College Boulevard and Montague Expressway east of the site). 10 Meteorological Data Inputs
AERMOD requires meteorological data as an input into the model. The meteorological data is processed using AERMET, a pre-processor to AERMOD. AERMET requires surface meteorological data, upper air meteorological data, and surface parameter data such as albedo (reflectivity) and surface roughness.

For the proposed project, pre-processed surface data was obtained from the BAAQMD for two meteorological stations in proximity of the Project site; San Jose International Airport (KSJC) and Moffett Federal Airfield (KNUQ) (see Figure 2). Upper air data was obtained from Oakland International Airport, since this is the closest upper air meteorological station with data available.

These data sets contained five complete years of meteorological data from January 2013 to December 2017. The meteorological data was processed using AERMET version 18081 with the adjusted U*. Emissions were modeled to be generated during potential construction hours only.
6 For hauling, the emissions from 1 mile out of the 46.7 miles (per trip) were assigned to on-site sources. For vendor trips, the emissions from 0.5 miles out of the 7.3 miles (per trip) were assigned to on-site sources. For context, the site is approximately

0.35 miles from its northern extent to its southern extent. 7 For example, emissions generated from July 2023 through June 2024 comprise Year 1 emissions, July 2024 through June 2025 comprise Year 2 emissions, and so on.
8 Consistent with EIR Mitigation Measure 13-2, emissions from construction activities were assumed to only occur during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday. 9 The release height of 4.15 meters is based on the modeling inputs from CARB’s 2000 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, Appendix VII, Table 2. Although the inputs in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan are for a “truck stop,” the release height has been used in other studies, including CARB’s HRA for the Union Pacific Railyard in Oakland (CARB 2000, CARB 2008). 10 Emissions from hauling are the one exception to this; they were assumed to only travel on the roadways east and south of the site. The roadways east and south of the site would provide the most direct routes to locations where on-site soils would be disposed of.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 7 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
The BAAQMD recommended the San Jose International Airport data be used for the HRA (BAAQMD 2022); however, AERMOD model runs were conducted using both sets of meteorological data as a conservative practice.

Figure 2: Wind Rose for San Jose International Airport and Moffett Federal Airfield San Jose International Airport
Moffett Federal Airfield
Source: BAAQMD 2019 and 2022
Note: Wind roses are for the 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM timeframe.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 8 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Terrain Inputs
Terrain was incorporated by using AERMAP (an AERMOD pre-processor) to import the elevation of the project site and surrounding area using data from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) with a resolution of 1/3 arcsecond.

Modeled Receptors
A 1,500-meter by 1,500-meter grid was generated with a receptor spacing of 75 meters. The grid’s center coordinates were 591216.00m E and 4138242.00m N. The grid was converted to discrete Cartesian receptors. Receptors that were located within the project site (and associated, modeled area sources) were removed. An additional 400-meter by 280-meter grid was generated over the Santa Clara Square Apartment Homes with a spacing of 20 meters.

This grid was also converted to discrete Cartesian receptors. In total, there were 731 modeled receptors. Consistent with BAAQMD modeling protocol, receptor height was set to 1.5 meters; the approximate an average human breathing zone (BAAQMD 2020).

Health Risk Analysis Methodology
Cancer risk and non-cancer health risks to sensitive receptors within one-quarter mile of on-site sources were estimated using the U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model and recommendations contained in the BAAQMD’s Health Risks Assessment Modeling Protocol, as well as the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual (BAAQMD 2020; OEHHA 2015).

Cancer Risk
Cancer risk is the calculated, pollutant-specific estimated probability of developing cancer based upon the dose and exposure to the toxic air contaminants (TAC). Cancer risk is determined by calculating the combinatory effects of the cancer potency factor (CPF) when inhaling the toxic, the daily inhalation dose, the age group the receptor is cohort to, the duration of exposure over a lifetime (70 years), and other factors such as age sensitivity and the amount of time spent at the location of exposure. Risks were assessed for the inhalation pathway (i.e., breathing) for both residential receptors. Additionally, residential receptors were assessed under a 70-year exposure duration to further detail potential risk to those under lifetime exposure. Cancer risk equations for residential receptors are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.

Receptor exposure was assessed for the four years in which construction activities would take place and the receptors would be exposed to construction PM

2.5 emissions. The exposure time
is consistent with the construction schedule described in the project’s EIR.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 9 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 2: Cancer Risk Equations
Equation 1 – Residential Risk: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑅𝑅.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶 × 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹
Where:

DOSEAIR
=
Daily Inhalation Dose (mg/kg-day). See Table 3.

CPF = Cancer Potency Factor for Inhalants (mg/kg-day). CPF is expressed as the 95th percent upper confidence limit of the slope of the dose response curve under continuous lifetime exposure conditions. The CPF for diesel exhaust is 1.1 mg/kg-day.

ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor. ASF is a protective coefficient intended to take into account increased susceptibility to long-term health effects from early-life exposure to TACs. The recommended ASFs are 10 for the third-trimester to birth and two-year age bins, 3 for the two-year to nine-year and 16-year age bins, and 1 for receptors over 16 years of age.

ED = Exposure Duration (years). Exposure duration characterizes the length of residency (30 Years) or employment (25 Years) of the receptor.

AT = Averaging Time (years). A 70-year (lifetime) averaging time is used to characterize to total risk as a factor of average risk over a typical lifespan.

FAH = Fraction at Home. FAH is the percentage of time the receptor is physically at the receptor location. The recommended percentages are 85 percent for the third- trimester to birth and two-year age bins, 72 percent for the two-year to nine-year and 16-year age bins, and 73 for receptors over 16 years of age.

Table 3: Inhalation Dose Equations
Residential Dose 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑅𝑅.𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶 × 10−6
Where:

CAIR = Concentration of TAC in air (µg/m3). Concentration of toxic in micrograms per one cubic meter of air. The AERMOD program is used in the study to determine concentrations of diesel particulate matter at surrounding discrete and grid receptor points.

BR/BW = Breathing Rate ÷ Body Weight (L/kg/day). Daily breathing rate normalized to body weight. The 95
th percentile breathing rate to body weight ratios are used in this study with a recommended 361 L/kg/day for the third-trimester to birth age bin and 1,090 L/kg/day for the birth to two-years age bin. The 80 th percentile
breathing rate to body weight ratios are used in this study with a recommended 572 for the two-years to 16-years age bin, 261 L/kg/day for the 16-years to 30- years age bin, and 233 L/kg/day for the 16-years to 70-years age bin.

A = Inhalation Absorption Factor. Is a coefficient that reflects the fraction of chemical absorbed in studies used in the development of CPF and Reference Exposure Levels (RELs). An absorption factor of one is recommended for all chemicals.

EF = Exposure Frequency. EF is the ratio of days in a year that a receptor is receiving the dose. The recommended EF is 0.96 characterizing an assumed 350 days a year that a residential receptor is home for some portion of the day.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 10 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Non-Cancer Risk
The chronic non-cancer hazard quotient is the calculated pollutant-specific indicator for risk of developing an adverse health effect on specific organ system(s) targeted by the identified TAC, in this DPM. The potential for exposure to result in chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration to the chemical-specific, non-cancer chronic reference exposure levels (RELs). The REL is a concentration below which there is assumed to be no observable adverse health impact to a target organ system. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient. To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic non-cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the hazard quotients for all chemicals are summed, yielding a hazard index. The chronic REL for DPM was established by OEHHA as 5 μg/m

3. For an acute hazard quotient, the
one-hour maximum concentration is divided by the acute REL for the substance; however, there is no acute REL for DPM.

Chronic non-cancer risks are considered significant if a project’s TAC emissions result in a hazard index greater than or equal to one. Non-cancer risk equations are summarized in Table

4. Table 4: Non-Cancer Risk Equation
Chronic Hazard Quotient: 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Where:

HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.

CDPM = Annual average DPM concentration (μg/m3).

RELDPM = Reference exposure level (REL) for DPM; the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.

Discussion of Scaling Health Risk Values
The AERMOD model was run once for each meteorological file (i.e., once for San Jose International Airport and once for Moffett Federal Airfield), utilizing the emissions rates calculated for the project based on the use of Tier III and Tier IV equipment/emissions factors (i.e., Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV)). The health risk values presented for OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) in the following section, “Health Risk Assessment Results”, are based on the difference (ratio-wise) between mass emissions of PM

2.5 for off-road sources in
EIR Scenario 1 and OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2.11 Table 5 below shows the estimated mass emissions of PM2.5 by linear construction year for Scenarios 1 and 2 and presents the ratios of these differences.
11 This approach to scaling is slightly conservative, as it also increases risks associated with receptor exposure to DPM from on- road vehicles (hauling, vendor, and worker trips). In actuality, there would be no difference in risks between the two scenarios associated with DPM emissions (and corresponding concentrations) from on-road vehicles. Thus, including those concentrations (and risk contributions from those concentrations) in the parameter being scaled would result in a slightly higher outcome than if only the off-road emissions were being scaled.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 11 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 5: Off-road Project Construction DPM Emissions for Scenarios 1 and 2, and Scaling Values
Linear Year of
Construction
Off-road Equipment DPM Exhaust Emissions
(PM2.5 Tons per Year) Scaling Factor
(Ratio of
Scenario 2 to 1)
EIR Scenario 1
(Tier III and IV
Equipment)
OFFROAD2021 Scenario
2 (Average County-wide
Fleet)
Year 1 0.04 0.11 2.83
Year 2 0.08 0.08 1.01
Year 3 0.12 0.09 0.74
Year 4 0.14 0.08 0.57
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 1)
As shown in Table 5, Scenario 2 emissions are approximately 283% greater in Year 1 than Scenario 1 emissions. Therefore, health risks calculated for Scenario 1 would be scaled up by approximately 2.83 for Year 1. Similarly, Scenario 1 risks are scaled by approximately 1.01 in Year 2, 0.74 in Year 3, and 0.57 in Year 4.

It is observed that, based on OFFROAD2021, the average blend of construction equipment operating in Santa Clara County during Year 2022 has an emissions profile somewhere between Tier III and Tier IV emissions standards. As shown in Table 5, the off-road DPM emissions calculated for Scenario 1 generally reflect a greater blend of Tier IV equipment earlier on in the construction schedule (Year 1), while a greater blend of Tier III equipment is utilized toward the end of construction (Years 3 and 4). Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) has more emissions than Scenario 1 (mainly comprised of Tier IV equipment, as noted previously) in Year 1, which demonstrates that the county-wide fleet, on average, emits more PM

2.5 exhaust
than Tier IV equipment alone. In contrast, emissions in Years 3 and 4 for Scenario 2 are lower than Scenario 1 (i.e., where more equipment meets Tier III emissions standards), which indicates that the county-wide fleet in later years emits less PM2.5 exhaust than Tier III equipment. This indicates that the equipment’s emissions profile by Greystar is in line with typical construction emissions rates characteristics throughout the county.

Construction Health Risk Assessment Results
The results of the construction HRA are presented below. The AERMOD output files for the project are contained in Attachment 2.

Individual Cancer Risk from Exposure to DPM (San Jose International Airport Met Data) The predicted locations of the annual, point of maximum impact (PMI) and the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) for DPM exposure during construction along with contours of pollutant concentrations in proximity of the Project site are shown in Attachment 3. Figure 1 through Figure 4 of Attachment 3 depict DPM concentrations for construction Year 1 through Year 4, respectively. See Attachment 4 for the HRA calculations. The predicted PMI is located to the east of the Building A construction area for Year 1 and Year 3, to the southeast of Building B for Year 2, and southeast of Building C for Year 4. 12 Since the PMIs for DPM
exposure are located on land that is not occupied by a receptor on a permanent basis, lifetime 12 The PMI for Year 1 and Year 3 is located at 591291.00 m E, 4138017.00 m N; at 591291.00 m E, 4138092.00 m N for Year 2; and at 591291.00 m E, 4138317.00 m N for Year 4.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 12 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
excess cancer risks and chronic non-cancer health hazards, which are based on exposure to annual average pollutant concentrations, were not estimated for the modeled PMI locations.

Accordingly, health risks were assessed at the modeled residential MEIR location, which is located southwest of the project site at a multi-family residential building (the northeastern-most building of the Santa Clara Square Apartments) located at the corner of Augustine Drive and Octavius Drive, in the City of Santa Clara (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). The HRA for residential receptors evaluated worst-case carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to child (3 rd
trimester, 0-2 years, and 2-16 years) and adult (16-30 years and 30-70 years) receptors.

The potential incremental increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors exposed to construction exhaust emissions associated with Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) are shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Incremental Increase in Cancer Risk from Exposure to Total Project Construction DPM Emissions (San Jose International Airport Met Data) Starting Receptor Age Range at Year 1 of
Project Construction
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)(B)
(Total Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(C)
Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester) 0.3 0.5
Residential Child Receptor (1-2 Years of Age) 0.2 0.3
Residential Child Receptor (2-16 Years of Age) 0.1 0.1
Residential Adult Receptor (16 to 30 Years of Age) <0.1 <0.1 Residential Adult Receptor (30 to 70 Years of Age) <0.1 <0.1 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00 m E and 4137730.00 m N. (B) Risks presented are representative of receptor’s age at time of construction. For example, “Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Tr
imester)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from 3rd Trimester (Year 1) through age 4 (Year 4); “Residential Child Receptor (1-2)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from age 1 (Year 1) through age 5 (Year 4); and so on. (C) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5.

As shown in Table 6, construction exhaust emissions associated with Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) would have the potential to result in maximum incremental cancerogenic health risk increases of 0.3 and 0.5, respectively, for receptors that are at 3rd Trimester age at the beginning of construction. Both of these risk values are well below the BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 excess cancers in a million.

In addition to assessing potential cancerogenic health risk increases based on receptor exposure throughout the entire duration of construction activities, an additional analysis was conducted to evaluate potential cancerogenic health risk increases if receptors were born at the beginning of Year 2 construction and Year 3 construction, due to varying pollutant concentrations across the different years. Table 7 below shows the potential increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors of 3
rd Trimester of age for construction activities
beginning in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3.13
13 Note that potential health risks associated with a receptor that is of 3rd Trimester age at the beginning of Year 4 of construction has not been estimated, because the DPM concentrations at the MEIR are lower for that construction in that year than years prior. This is true for both Scenarios 1 and 2.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 13 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 7: Maximum Increased Cancer Risk from Project Construction DPM Emissions for Infant Receptors Based on Year of Birth (San Jose International Airport Met Data)
Starting Year of Exposure
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)
(Total Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(B)
Year 1 0.3(C) 0.5(C)
Year 2 0.5 0.4
Year 3 0.4 0.3
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00 m E and 4137730.00 m N. The MEIR is located at the same location for all years of construction.
(B) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5). (C) T his value is the same as that presented in Table 6.

As shown in in Table 7, the maximum incremental increase in cancer risk for a 3rd Trimester residential receptor would be 0.5 for Scenario 1, if the receptor was born in Year 2 of construction, and 0.5 for Scenario 2, if the receptor was born in Year 1 of construction. The potential incremental increase in cancer risk would be well below the BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 10.0 for both scenarios.

Individual Cancer Risk from Exposure to DPM (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data) The predicted locations of the annual, point of maximum impact (PMI) and the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) for DPM exposure during construction along with contours of pollutant concentrations in proximity of the Project site are shown in Attachment 3. Figure 5 through Figure 8 of Attachment 3 depict DPM concentrations for construction Year 1 through Year 4, respectively. The predicted PMI is located to the southeast of Building A construction area for Year 1 and Year 3, to the south of Building A for Year 2, and east of the Park for Year

4.14 Since the PMI for DPM exposure is located on land that is not occupied by a receptor on a permanent basis, lifetime excess cancer risks and chronic non-cancer health hazards, which are based on exposure to annual average pollutant concentrations, were not estimated for the modeled PMI location.

Accordingly, health risks were assessed at the modeled residential MEIR location, which is located southwest of the project site at a multi-family residential building (the northeastern-most building of the Santa Clara Square Apartments) located at the corner of Augustine Drive and Octavius Drive, in the City of Santa Clara (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). The HRA for residential receptors evaluated worst-case carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to child (3 rd
trimester, 0-2 years, and 2-16 years) and adult (16-30 years and 30-70 years) receptors.

The potential incremental increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors exposed to construction exhaust emissions associated with EIR Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) are shown below in Table 8. 14 The PMI for Year 1 and Year 3 is located at 591291.00 m E, 4137942.00 m N; at 591216.00 m E, 4137492.00 m N for Year 2; and at 591291.00 m E, 4138424.00 m N for Year 4.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 14 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Table 8: Incremental Increase in Cancer Risk from Exposure to Total Project Construction DPM Emissions (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data) Starting Receptor Age Range at Year 1 of
Project Construction
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)(B)
(Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(C)
Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trimester) 4.1 6.0
Residential Child Receptor (1-2 Years of Age) 2.2 3.9
Residential Child Receptor (2-16 Years of Age) 1.3 1.4
Residential Adult Receptor (16 to 30 Years of Age) 0.1 0.2 Residential Adult Receptor (30 to 70 Years of Age) 0.1 0.1 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00m E and 4137730.00m N
(B) Risks presented are representative of receptor’s age at time of construction. For example, “Residential Infant Receptor (3rd Trim
ester)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from 3rd Trimester (Year 1) through age 4 (Year 4); “Residential Child Receptor (1-2)” accounts for risks associated with exposure from age 1 (Year 1) through age 5 (Year 4); and so on. (C) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5).

As shown in Table 8, construction exhaust emissions associated with Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV) and Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) would have the potential to result in maximum incremental cancerogenic health risk increases of 4.1 and 6.0, respectively, for receptors that are at 3rd Trimester age at the beginning of construction. Both of these risk values are below the BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 excess cancers in a million.

Table 9 below shows the potential increase in cancerogenic health risk for receptors of 3rd Trimester of age for construction activities beginning in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3.

Table 9: Maximum Increased Cancer Risk from Project Construction DPM Emissions for Infant Receptors Based on Year of Birth (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data) Starting Year of Exposure
Health Risk Increase at MEIR(A)
(Total Excess Cancer Risk per Million
Population)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2(B)
Year 1 4.1(C) 6.0(C)
Year 2 6.0 5.0
Year 3 5.6 3.8
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: MIG, 2022 (see Attachment 4)
(A) MEIR is located at 591165.00m E and 4137730.00m N. The MEIR is located at the same location for all years of construction.
(B) Scenario 2 risks based on Scenario 1 yearly risks scaled based on the factors provided in Table 5). (C) This value is the same as that presented in Table 8.

As shown in in Table 9, the maximum incremental increase in cancer risk for a 3rd Trimester residential receptor would be 6.0 for Scenario 1, if the receptor was born in Year 2 of construction, and 6.0 for Scenario 2, if the receptor was born in Year 1 of construction. The Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 15 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
potential incremental increase in cancer risk would be the BAAQMD’s significance threshold of

10.0 for both scenarios.

Non-Cancer Risk (San Jose International Airport Met Data) The maximum annual average DPM concentration at any long-term receptor location would be approximately 0.0017 μg/m
3 for Scenario 1 (Year 3) and is estimated to be approximately

0.0015 μg/m3 for Scenario 2 (Year 1). Both of these concentrations would be located at the MEIR (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). Based on the chronic inhalation REL for DPM (5 μg/m3), the calculated chronic hazard quotient during the maximum exposure to DPM concentrations for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would be 0.003 and 0.003, respectively, both of which are well below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0. The annual average DPM concentrations at the MEIR location would be lower for all other years under both scenarios, therefore, DPM concentrations in those years would also result in chronic hazard quotients that are below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold.

Non-Cancer Risk (Moffett Federal Airfield Met Data)
The maximum annual average DPM concentration at any long-term receptor location would be approximately 0.0208 μg/m
3 for Scenario 1 (Year 3) and is estimated to be approximately

0.0184 μg/m3 for Scenario 2 (Year 1). Both of these concentrations would be located at the MEIR (565524.25 m E, 4151934 m N). Based on the chronic inhalation REL for DPM (5 μg/m3), the calculated chronic hazard quotient during the maximum exposure to DPM concentrations for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would be 0.004 and 0.004, respectively, both of which are well below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0. The annual average DPM concentrations at the MEIR location would be lower for all other years under both scenarios, therefore, DPM concentrations in those years would also result in chronic hazard quotients that are below the BAAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold.

Conclusion
As described in this memo, receptor exposure to construction exhaust emissions associated with the proposed Greystar General Plan Amendment Project would not exceed applicable BAAQMD-recommended CEQA thresholds of significance for cancer risk or non-cancer risk. As documented herein this memorandum, potential cancerogenic and non-cancerogenic health risks associated with the Greystar General Plan Amendment Project were evaluated for four separate conditions:
1) EIR Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV Equipment) under San Jose International Airport Meteorological Conditions
2) OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) under San Jose International Airport Meteorological Conditions
3) EIR Scenario 1 (Tier III and IV Equipment) under Moffett Federal Airfield Meteorological Conditions
4) OFFROAD2021 Scenario 2 (Average County-wide Fleet) under Moffett Federal Airfield Meteorological Conditions
All of the analyses for the conditions presented above demonstrate that the project would result in less-than-significant health impacts under the scenario analyzed in the EIR, as well as if the project were to use a construction fleet meeting the county-wide average emissions profile.

These results confirm the significance findings contained in the project’s EIR.

It should be further noted that, when using the meteorological dataset recommended for use by the BAAQMD (i.e., the San Jose International Airport data), the estimated incremental increase in cancer risk per million population associated with receptor exposure to construction DPM emissions was less than 1.0, and less than a tenth of the BAAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of

10.0 excess cancer risks per million population.

Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Page 16 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
References
The following references were used to prepare this memorandum:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017. California Environmental Quality Air Quality Guidelines. 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
______. 2019. Personal Communication. Email. Subject: AERMOD Met Data Question and Data: Cartan Field (Atherton). Robert Hull, BAAQMD to Phil Gleason, MIG. July 8, 2019. ______. 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Modeling Protocol. December 2020. ______. 2022. Personal Communication. Email. Subject: Meteorological Data Recommendation. Robert Hull, BAAQMD to Chris Dugan, MIG. May 2, 2022.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Sacramento, CA. 2000. Available online at: <https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf> ______. 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Railyard. CARB.

Stationary Source Division. April 22, 2008. Web. February 28, 2019. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/up_oak_hra.pdf>
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA. February 2015.

Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2013. “CEQA Guide”. Chapter

3. Dispersion Modeling of Construction-Generated PM10 Emissions. Revised July 2013.

Web.
http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch3PMDispersionModeling GuidanceFINAL7-2013.pdf
City of Santa Clara. 2021. Environmental Impact Report for Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment. SCH# 2020060425. November 2021. ## PG
/ CD
Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 1 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
Attachment 1
Construction PM2.5 Exhaust (DPM) Calculations and AERMOD Rate Derivations Greystar General Plan Amendment Construction HRA Attachment 1 MIG Memorandum May 11, 2022
This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment (City of Santa Clara, CA) Health Risk Assessment Memorandum
Attachment 1: Construction PM2.5 Exhaust (DPM) Calculations and AERMOD Rate Derivations Prepared by: MIG, Inc.

Contents:

Sheet 1 Scenario  2 Scaling Factors for HRA
Sheet 2 Scenario  1 – AERMOD Source Inputs
Sheet 3 Scenario  1 – Emissions Source Assignment (Area of Emissions) Sheet 4 Scenario  1 – PM2.5 Emissions Compilation
Sheet 5 Worker  Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Sheet 6 Vendor  Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Sheet 7 Haul  Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Sheet 8O n ‐road Motor Vehicle Emission Factors (PM2.5 Exhaust) Sheet 9 Scenario  1 – Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Sheet 10 Scenario  2 – Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Sheet 11 Scenario  1 – Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Sheet 12 Scenario  2 – Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Sheet 13 Scenario  1 – Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Sheet 14 Scenario  2 – Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Sheet 15 Tier III and IV Emission Factors
Sheet 16 Off‐road Construction Equipment List by Phase
Sheet 17 Raw  OFFROAD2021 Output File for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 Sheet 18 Raw  EMFAC2021 Output file for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 This page intentionally left blank.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 1: Scenario 2 Scaling Factors for HRA
Table 1‐1: Scenario 2 Scaling Factors for HRA
Scenario 1
(EIR; Tier III and IV)
Scenario 2
(OFFROAD2021; Average
County‐wide Fleet)
Year 1 0.04 0.11 2.83
Year 2 0.08 0.08 1.01
Year 3 0.12 0.09 0.74
Year 4 0.14 0.08 0.57
Off‐road Equipment PDM (Exhaust) PM2.5 Emissions
(Tons)
Linear Year of
Construction
Scaling Factor
(Ratio of Scenario 2 to 1)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 2: Scenario 1 ‐ AERMOD Source Inputs
Table 2‐1: Senario 1 AERMOD Source Input Information
Source Description
Size (ft^2) /
Length (m)
Size (m^2) /
Length (m)
Emissions Rate (grams
/ sec)
Emissions Rate (grams /
(sec * m^2))
PAREA01 Y1_ON_C ‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.000227241 4.13E ‐08 PAREA02 Y1_ON_C ‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.000226973 4.13E ‐08 PAREA03 Y1_ON_C ‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.000134268 4.13E ‐08 PAREA04 Y1_ON_P ‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0.000201733 4.05E ‐08 PAREA05 Y1_ON_P ‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0.000171489 4.05E ‐08 PAREA06 Y1_ON_B ‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.000396605 6.05E ‐08 PAREA07 Y1_ON_B ‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.000346103 6.05E ‐08 PAREA08 Y1_ON_B ‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.000311769 6.05E ‐08 PAREA09 Y1_ON_A ‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.000315277 6.54E ‐08 PAREA10 Y1_ON_A ‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.000314838 6.54E ‐08 PAREA11 Y1_ON_A ‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.000385518 6.54E ‐08 PAREA12 Y2_ON_C ‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.000592099 1.08E ‐07 PAREA13 Y2_ON_C ‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.0005914 1.08E ‐07 PAREA14 Y2_ON_C ‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.00034985 1.08E ‐07 PAREA15 Y2_ON_P ‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0 0.00E+00
PAREA16 Y2_ON_P ‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0 0.00E+00
PAREA17 Y2_ON_B ‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.000878567 1.34E ‐07 PAREA18 Y2_ON_B ‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.000766694 1.34E ‐07 PAREA19 Y2_ON_B ‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.000690637 1.34E ‐07 PAREA20 Y2_ON_A ‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.000648663 1.35E ‐07 PAREA21 Y2_ON_A ‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.00064776 1.35E ‐07 PAREA22 Y2_ON_A ‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.000793181 1.35E ‐07 PAREA23 Y3_ON_C ‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.00080796 1.47E ‐07 PAREA24 Y3_ON_C ‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.000807005 1.47E ‐07 PAREA25 Y3_ON_C ‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.000477394 1.47E ‐07 PAREA26 Y3_ON_P ‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0 0.00E+00
PAREA27 Y3_ON_P ‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0 0.00E+00
PAREA28 Y3_ON_B ‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.001379358 2.11E ‐07 PAREA29 Y3_ON_B ‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.001203716 2.11E ‐07 PAREA30 Y3_ON_B ‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.001084307 2.11E ‐07 PAREA31 Y3_ON_A ‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.001081404 2.24E ‐07 PAREA32 Y3_ON_A ‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.001079898 2.24E ‐07 PAREA33 Y3_ON_A ‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.001322333 2.24E ‐07 PAREA34 Y4_ON_C ‐N 59,271.9 5,506.5 0.002412391 4.38E ‐07 PAREA35 Y4_ON_C ‐C 59,201.9 5,500.0 0.002409542 4.38E ‐07 PAREA36 Y4_ON_C ‐S 35,021.6 3,253.6 0.001425393 4.38E ‐07 PAREA37 Y4_ON_P ‐N 53,571.2 4,976.9 0.00165837 3.33E ‐07 PAREA38 Y4_ON_P ‐S 45,539.8 4,230.8 0.001409747 3.33E ‐07 PAREA39 Y4_ON_B ‐N 70,522.1 6,551.7 0.000276437 4.22E ‐08 PAREA40 Y4_ON_B ‐C 61,542.1 5,717.4 0.000241237 4.22E ‐08 PAREA41 Y4_ON_B ‐S 55,437.1 5,150.2 0.000217306 4.22E ‐08 PAREA42 Y4_ON_A ‐N 51,862.9 4,818.2 0.000114078 2.37E ‐08 Notes
PAREA01 through PAREA44: Emissions from each
project element (e.g., Building C, Park, etc.) spread
equally across sub‐sources (e.g., Building C North,
Building C Central, etc.) by size of each source.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

PAREA43 Y4_ON_A ‐C 51,790.7 4,811.5 0.000113919 2.37E ‐08 PAREA44 Y4_ON_A ‐S 63,417.6 5,891.6 0.000139493 2.37E ‐08 ARLN01 Y1_OFF_E 2,054.2 4.79719E ‐05 3.83E ‐09
ARLN02 Y1_OFF_W 2,461.0 6.97541E ‐06 4.65E ‐10
ARLN03 Y2_OFF_E 2,054.2 5.85375E ‐06 4.68E ‐10
ARLN04 Y2_OFF_W 2,461.0 7.01299E ‐06 4.68E ‐10
ARLN05 Y3_OFF_E 2,054.2 3.96015E ‐06 3.16E ‐10
ARLN06 Y3_OFF_W 2,461.0 4.74439E ‐06 3.16E ‐10
ARLN07 Y4_OFF_E 2,054.2 3.85097E ‐06 3.08E ‐10
ARLN08 Y4_OFF_W 2,461.0 4.61359E ‐06 3.08E ‐10
ARLN01: Emissions for this segment porportioned to a
weighted distance derived from haul, vendor, and
worker trips.

ARLN02 through ARLN08: Emissions for this segment
porportioned to a weighted distance derived from
vendor and worker trips.

Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 3: Scenario 1 ‐ PM2.5 Emissions Source Assigment (Area of Emissions) Table 3‐1: Scenario 1 PM2.5 Emissions Source Assigment
Running Idle Running Idle
Y1 On Building A 12036.89465 108.3294548 9.362421023 6.610006795 6.893935947 0 12168.09047 0.001015633 Y1 On Building B 12506.53625 108.3294548 9.362421023 4.531053045 4.725681899 0 12633.48486 0.001054478 Y1 On Building C 6930.074537 108.3294548 9.362421023 1.33266266 1.389906441 0 7050.488982 0.000588482 Y1 On Park 4353.81168 108.3294548 9.362421023 0 0 0 4471.503556 0.000373222 Y1 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 372.9643028 0 46.70614281 419.6704456 3.50286E ‐05 Y1 Off (East of Site) 0 19802.62433 0 372.9643028 0 46.70614281 20222.29478 0.001687892 Y1 Off Building A 0 19802.62433 0 395.2784063 0 93.41228561 20291.31502 Y1 Off Building B 0 0 270.9569721 0 270.9569721
Y1 Off Building C 0 0 79.69322708 0 79.69322708
Y1 Off Park 0 000 0
Y2 On Building A 25027.28571 0 0 3.838068462 4.00293055 0 25035.12671 0.002089604 Y2 On Building B 27974.16137 0 0 5.757102692 6.004395825 0 27985.92287 0.002335898 Y2 On Building C 18364.86651 0 0 2.878551346 3.002197913 0 18370.74726 0.001533349 Y2 On Park 00000000
Y2 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 372.9643028 0 65.50991459 438.4742173 3.65981E ‐05 Y2 Off (East of Site) 0 0 0 372.9643028 0 65.50991459 438.4742173 3.65981E ‐05 Y2 Off Building A 0 0 0 229.516494 0 131.0198292 360.5363232 Y2 Off Building B 0 0 0 344.274741 0 344.274741
Y2 Off Building C 0 0 0 172.1373705 0 172.1373705
Y2 Off Park 00000 0
Y3 On Building A 41730.64669 0 0 2.981356751 3.109419267 41736.73746 0.003483635 Y3 On Building B 43931.70726 0 0 3.152699093 3.288121523 43938.14808 0.00366738 Y3 On Building C 25063.76766 0 0 2.136067864 2.227821467 25068.13155 0.002092359 Y3 On Park 00000 00
Y3 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 247.2766989 0 70.96907414 318.245773 2.6563E ‐05 Y3 Off (East of Site) 0 0 0 247.2766989 0 70.96907414 318.245773 2.6563E ‐05 Y3 Off Building A 0 0 0 178.2851337 0 141.9381483 320.223282 Y3 Off Building B 0 0 0 188.5314058 0 188.5314058
Y3 Off Building C 0 0 0 127.7368583 0 127.7368583
Y3 Off Park 00000 0
Y4 On Building A 4402.121143 0 0 0.342684684 0.357404513 4402.821232 0.00036749 Y4 On Building B 8804.242286 0 0 0.685369368 0.714809027 8805.642464 0.00073498 Y4 On Building C 74836.05943 0 0 5.825639629 6.075876728 74847.96094 0.006247326 Y4 On Park 36756.38674 0 0 1.028054052 1.07221354 36758.48701 0.003068116 Y4 Off (West of Site) 0 0 0 235.6642572 0 87.34655278 323.01081 2.69607E ‐05 Y4 Off (East of Site) 0 0 0 235.6642572 0 87.34655278 323.01081 2.69607E ‐05 Y4 Off Building A 0 0 0 20.49254411 0 174.6931056 195.1856497 Emissions Rate
(grams / second)
Year 1
Year 4
Year 3
Year 2
Description
Heavy‐Duty Off‐
road
PM2.5 Emissions (grams)
Hauling (46.7 mi) Vendor  (7.3 mi)
Worker (14.7 mi)
Total Emissions
(grams)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Y4 Off Building B 0 0 0 40.98508821 0 40.98508821
Y4 Off Building C 0 0 0 348.3732498 0 348.3732498
Y4 Off Park 0 0 0 61.47763232 0 61.47763232
Notes: One mile of running hauling emissions distributed across all on‐site areas to capture haul truck activity at the site.

Half‐a‐mile of running vendor emissions allocated to on‐site activites for material delivery.

All hauling expected to go to location south of site; thus, all emissions modeled to travel on segment of Highway 101 south of the site.

Emissions rates calculated based construction occuring 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturdays.

Table 3‐2: Santa Clara Construction Hours (EIR MM 13‐2) Mon ‐ Fri, 7 AM
to 6 PM
Saturday, 9 AM
to 6 PM
Total Daily Time (hours) 11 9 64 3328
Total Daily Time (seconds) 39600 32400 230400 11980800
Daily
Weekly Annually
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 4: Scenario 1 ‐ PM 2.5 Emissions Compilation
Table 4‐1: Scenario 1 ‐ PM2.5 Monthly Emissions Compilation (Tons) A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park Clear and Grub Jul ‐23 1 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 3 E ‐06 Mass Excavation Aug ‐23 2 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 4 E ‐06 Mass Excavation Sep ‐23 3 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 4 E ‐06 Mass Excavation Oct ‐23 4 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 4 E ‐06 Mass Excavation Nov ‐23 5 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 4 E ‐06 Structural Concrete Dec ‐23 6 0.0014 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0 0 0 2E ‐06 0 0 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete Jan ‐24 7 0.0014 0 0 0 0.0001 0 0 0 2E ‐06 0 0 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete Feb ‐24 8 0.0007 0.0007 0 0 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 0 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete Mar ‐24 9 0.0007 0.0007 0 0 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 0 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete Apr ‐24 10 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0 4E ‐05 4E ‐05 4E ‐05 0 6E ‐07 6E ‐07 6E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin May‐24 11 0.0019 0.0024 0.0024 0 4E ‐05 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 7E ‐07 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Jun‐24 12 0.0019 0.0047 0 0 4E ‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E ‐07 2E ‐06 0 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Jul‐24 13 0.0019 0.0047 0 0 4E ‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E ‐07 2E ‐06 0 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Aug‐24 14 0.0009 0.0033 0.0024 0 2E ‐05 8E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 4E ‐07 1E ‐06 9E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framin Sep‐24 15 0.0019 0.0024 0.0024 0 4E ‐05 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 7E ‐07 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Oct ‐24 16 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Nov ‐24 17 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Dec ‐24 18 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Jan ‐25 19 0.0024 0.0024 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Feb ‐25 20 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Mar ‐25 21 0 0.0024 0.0024 0 02 E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Apr‐25 22 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio May‐25 23 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Jun‐25 24 0.0049 0 0.0049 0 2E ‐05 0 2E ‐05 0 4E ‐07 0 4E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Jul‐25 25 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Aug‐25 26 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Sep‐25 27 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterio Oct‐25 28 0.002 0.002 0.0057 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 4E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 1E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Nov ‐25 29 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Dec ‐25 30 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Jan ‐26 31 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Feb ‐26 32 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Mar ‐26 33 0.0049 0.0049 0 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 1E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Apr‐26 34 0.0032 0.004 0.004 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit May‐26 35 0.0032 0.004 0.004 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Jun‐26 36 0.0032 0.004 0.004 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Jul‐26 37 0.0016 0.0016 0.0081 0 8E ‐06 8E ‐06 4E ‐05 0 1E ‐07 1E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Aug‐26 38 0.0016 0.0016 0.0081 0 8E ‐06 8E ‐06 4E ‐05 0 1E ‐07 1E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Sep‐26 39 0.0016 0.0016 0.0081 0 8E ‐06 8E ‐06 4E ‐05 0 1E ‐07 1E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Oct‐26 40 0 0.0016 0.0097 0 08 E ‐06 5E ‐05 0 0 1E ‐07 8E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Nov‐26 41 0 0.0016 0.0097 0 08 E ‐06 5E ‐05 0 0 1E ‐07 8E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Hauling (Idle) Vendor  (Idle)Heavy Duty Off‐RoadPhase / Task Month & Year
Linear
Month Hauling (Running)

0.02 Vendor (Running)
PM2.5 Emissions (Tons)
Worker
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Dec‐26 42 0 0.0016 0.0097 0 08 E ‐06 5E ‐05 0 0 1E ‐07 8E ‐07 0 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Jan‐27 43 0 0 0.0097 0.0016 00 5 E ‐05 8E ‐06 0 0 8E ‐07 1E ‐07 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Feb‐27 44 0 0 0.0097 0.0016 00 5 E ‐05 8E ‐06 0 0 8E ‐07 1E ‐07 2E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Sit Mar‐27 45 0 0 0.0097 0.0016 00 5 E ‐05 8E ‐06 0 0 8E ‐07 1E ‐07 2E ‐05 Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐27 46 0 0 0 0.0119 000 2 E ‐05 0 0 0 3E ‐07 2E ‐05 Site Work / Landscape May ‐27 47 0 0 0 0.0119 000 2 E ‐05 0 0 0 3E ‐07 2E ‐05 Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐27 48 0 0 0 0.0119 000 2 E ‐05 0 0 0 3E ‐07 2E ‐05

0.0133 0.0138 0.0076 0.0048 0.0223 0 0 0 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0.0004 0.0003 9E ‐05 0 8E ‐06 5E ‐06 2E ‐06 0 0.0001 0 0 0

0.0276 0.0308 0.0202 000000000 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 0 4E ‐06 7E ‐06 3E ‐06 0 0.0001 0 0 0

0.046 0.0484 0.0276 000000000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0 3E ‐06 4E ‐06 2E ‐06 0 0.0002 0 0 0

0.0049 0.0097 0.0825 0.0405 00000000 2 E ‐05 5E ‐05 0.0004 7E ‐05 4E ‐07 8E ‐07 7E ‐06 1E ‐06 0.0002 0 0 0 Table 4‐2: Conversions
lbs / ton grams  / lbs
2000 453.592
Table 4‐3: Scenario 1 ‐ PM2.5 Annual Emissions Compilation (Grams) A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park 12037 12507 6930 4354 20236 0 0 0 9.362 9.362 9.362 9.362 401.9 275.5 81.03 0 6.894 4.726 1.39 0 93.41 0 0 0 25027 27974 18365 000000000 233.4 350 175 0 4.003 6.004 3.002 0 131 0 0 0 41731 43932 25064 000000000 181.3 191.7 129.9 0 3.109 3.288 2.228 0 141.9 0 0 0 4402 8804 74836 36756 00000000 20.84 41.67 354.2 62.51 0.357 0.715 6.076 1.072 174.7 0 0 0 Linear Year 1 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Year
PM2.5 Emissions (Grams)
Heavy Duty Off‐Road Hauling
(Running) Vendor  (Running) Worker Vendor (Idle)Hauling (Idle) Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 5: Worker Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Table 5‐1: Worker Trips and PM2.5 Exhaust
Grams Tons
PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5  (Exh)
Clear and Grub Jul ‐23 1 All 100 4000 58800 2.426293133 2.67453E ‐06 Mass Excavation Aug ‐23 2 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E ‐06 Mass Excavation Sep ‐23 3 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E ‐06 Mass Excavation Oct ‐23 4 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E ‐06 Mass Excavation Nov ‐23 5 All 150 6000 88200 3.639439699 4.0118E ‐06 Structural Concrete Dec ‐23 6 A 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete Jan ‐24 7 A 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete Feb ‐24 8 A,  B 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete Mar ‐24 9 A,  B 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete Apr ‐24 10 A,  B, C 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In May ‐24 11 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jun ‐24 12 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jul ‐24 13 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Aug ‐24 14 A  (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Sep ‐24 15 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Oct ‐24 16 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Nov ‐24 17 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Dec ‐24 18 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Jan ‐25 19 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Feb ‐25 20 A  (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In Mar ‐25 21 B  (Frame), C (Frame) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Apr ‐25 22 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work May ‐25 23 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jun ‐25 24 A  (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jul ‐25 25 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Aug ‐25 26 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Sep ‐25 27 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Oct ‐25 28 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Nov ‐25 29 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Dec ‐25 30 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Jan ‐26 31 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Feb ‐26 32 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work Mar ‐26 33 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 450 18000 264600 10.9183191 1.20354E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐26 34 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape May ‐26 35 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐26 36 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jul ‐26 37 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Aug ‐26 38 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Sep ‐26 39 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Oct ‐26 40 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Nov ‐26 41 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Dec ‐26 42 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 20 Monthly Trips
(One‐way)
Average Trip
Distance

14.7 VMTDays of Construction
per MonthPhase / Year Month  & Year Linear
Month Area Number of
Workers
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jan ‐27 43 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Feb ‐27 44 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Mar ‐27 45 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐27 46 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Site Work / Landscape May ‐27 47 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐27 48 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 600 24000 352800 14.5577588 1.60472E ‐05 3850 154000 2263800 93.41228561 0.000102969
5400 216000 3175200 131.0198292 0.000144425
5850 234000 3439800 141.9381483 0.00015646
7200 288000 4233600 174.6931056 0.000192566
Table 5‐4: Conversions
lbs / ton grams  / lbs
2000 453.59237
Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 6: Vendor Trips (PM2.5 Exhaust)
Table 6‐1: Vendor Trips Information
Concrete Rebar Lumber MEP Rec  Lumber Rec  Const Int/Ext Site Total Clear and Grub Jul ‐23 1 All 00 0
Mass Excavation Aug ‐23 2 All 00 0
Mass Excavation Sep ‐23 3 All 00 0
Mass Excavation Oct ‐23 4 All 00 0
Mass Excavation Nov ‐23 5 All 00 0
Structural Concrete Dec ‐23 6 A 50 20 70 560 4088
Structural Concrete Jan ‐24 7 A 50 20 70 560 4088
Structural Concrete Feb ‐24 8 A,  B 50 20 70 560 4088
Structural Concrete Mar ‐24 9 A,  B 50 20 70 560 4088
Structural Concrete Apr ‐24 10 A,  B, C 50 20 70 560 4088 Structural Concrete + F May‐24 11 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2 Structural Concrete + F Jun‐24 12 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2 Structural Concrete + F Jul‐24 13 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2 Structural Concrete + F Aug‐24 14 A  (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2 Structural Concrete + F Sep‐24 15 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 50 20 8 10 5 5 98 784 5723.2 Framing / Rough In Oct ‐24 16 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In Nov ‐24 17 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In Dec ‐24 18 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In Jan ‐25 19 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In Feb ‐25 20 A  (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In Mar ‐25 21 B  (Frame), C (Frame) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex Apr‐25 22 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex May‐25 23 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex Jun‐25 24 A  (E/I), C (Framing) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex Jul‐25 25 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex Aug‐25 26 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex Sep‐25 27 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 81 0 5 5 28 224 1635.2 Framing / Rough In + Ex Oct‐25 28 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 81 0 5 52 0 48 384 2803.2 Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 52 0 25 200 1460 Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 52 0 25 200 1460 Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 52 0 25 200 1460 Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 52 0 25 200 1460 Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 52 0 25 200 1460 Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐26 34 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work May‐26 35 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐26 36 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐26 37 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐26 38 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐26 39 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐26 40 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐26 41 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Phase / Year Month &
Year
Linear
Month Area Vendor Deliveries Per Week
4 Monthly
Trips
(One‐way)
Monthly
Multiplier
Average
Trip
Distance

7.3 VMT
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐26 42 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐27 43 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐27 44 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐27 45 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 52 0 10 35 280 2044 Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐27 46 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 10 10 80 584 Site Work / Landscape May ‐27 47 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 10 10 80 584 Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐27 48 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 10 10 80 584 4368 31886
4368 31886
2896 21141
2760 20148
Table 6‐2: Conversions
lbs / ton grams  / lbs
2000 453.592
Table 6‐3: Vendor Trips PM2.5 Emissions
Grams
(Running)
Tons
(Running)
Grams
(Emissions
per Trip;
Idle for
PM2.5)
Tons
(Emissions
per Trip;
Idle for
PM2.5 and
PM10)
PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) A B C Park A B C Park A B C Park Clear and Grub Jul ‐23 1 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000
Mass Excavation Aug ‐23 2 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000 Mass Excavation Sep ‐23 3 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000 Mass Excavation Oct ‐23 4 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000 Mass Excavation Nov ‐23 5 All 0.00 0 0.00 0 0% 00000000 Structural Concrete Dec ‐23 6 A 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E ‐06 100% 100% 0.0001 0 0 0 2E ‐0 6000 Structural Concrete Jan ‐24 7 A 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E ‐06 100% 0% 100% 0.0001 0 0 0 2E ‐0 6000 Structural Concrete Feb ‐24 8 A,  B 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E ‐06 50% 50% 100% 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 0 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 0 Structural Concrete Mar ‐24 9 A,  B 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E ‐06 50% 50% 100% 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 0 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 0 Structural Concrete Apr ‐24 10 A,  B, C 97.23 0.0001 1.67 2E ‐06 33% 33% 33% 100% 4E ‐05 4E ‐05 4E ‐05 0 6E ‐07 6E ‐07 6E ‐07 0 Structural Concrete + F May‐24 11 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E ‐06 29% 36% 36% 100% 4E ‐05 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 7E ‐07 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 Structural Concrete + F Jun‐24 12 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E ‐06 29% 71% 100% 4E ‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E ‐07 2E ‐06 0 0 Structural Concrete + F Jul‐24 13 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E ‐06 29% 71% 100% 4E ‐05 0.0001 0 0 7E ‐07 2E ‐06 0 0 Structural Concrete + F Aug‐24 14 A  (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E ‐06 14% 50% 36% 100% 2E ‐05 8E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 4E ‐07 1E ‐06 9E ‐07 0 Structural Concrete + F Sep‐24 15 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 136.12 0.0002 2.34 3E ‐06 29% 36% 36% 100% 4E ‐05 5E ‐05 5E ‐05 0 7E ‐07 9E ‐07 9E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In Oct ‐24 16 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 Framing / Rough In Nov ‐24 17 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 Framing / Rough In Dec ‐24 18 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 Framing / Rough In Jan ‐25 19 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 0 Framing / Rough In Feb ‐25 20 A  (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In Mar ‐25 21 B  (Frame), C (Frame) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 0 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 4E ‐07 4E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In + Ex Apr‐25 22 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In + Ex May‐25 23 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In + Ex Jun‐25 24 A  (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 0 2E ‐05 0 4E ‐07 0 4E ‐07 0 Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Phase / Year Month &
Year
Linear
Month Area
PM2.5 Idle Emissions Breakdown by
Area (tons)
Total
PM2.5 Running Emissions
Breakdown by Area (tons)Activity Breakdown by Area (%)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Framing / Rough In + Ex Jul‐25 25 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In + Ex Aug‐25 26 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In + Ex Sep‐25 27 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 38.89 4E ‐05 0.67 7E ‐07 33% 33% 33% 100% 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 1E ‐05 0 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 2E ‐07 0 Framing / Rough In + Ex Oct‐25 28 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 66.67 7E ‐05 1.14 1E ‐06 21% 21% 58% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 4E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐25 29 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E ‐05 0.60 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐25 30 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E ‐05 0.60 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐26 31 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E ‐05 0.60 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐26 32 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E ‐05 0.60 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐26 33 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 34.73 4E ‐05 0.60 7E ‐07 50% 50% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Apr‐26 34 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 29% 36% 36% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work May‐26 35 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 29% 36% 36% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Jun‐26 36 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 29% 36% 36% 100% 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 2E ‐05 0 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 3E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Jul‐26 37 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 14% 14% 71% 100% 8E ‐06 8E ‐06 4E ‐05 0 1E ‐07 1E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Aug‐26 38 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 14% 14% 71% 100% 8E ‐06 8E ‐06 4E ‐05 0 1E ‐07 1E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Sep‐26 39 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 14% 14% 71% 100% 8E ‐06 8E ‐06 4E ‐05 0 1E ‐07 1E ‐07 7E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Oct‐26 40 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 14% 86% 100% 0 8E ‐06 5E ‐05 0 0 1E ‐07 8E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Nov‐26 41 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 14% 86% 100% 0 8E ‐06 5E ‐05 0 0 1E ‐07 8E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Dec‐26 42 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 14% 86% 100% 0 8E ‐06 5E ‐05 0 0 1E ‐07 8E ‐07 0 Exterior / Interior Work Jan‐27 43 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 86% 14% 100% 0 0 5E ‐05 8E ‐06 0 0 8E ‐07 1E ‐07 Exterior / Interior Work Feb‐27 44 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 86% 14% 100% 0 0 5E ‐05 8E ‐06 0 0 8E ‐07 1E ‐07 Exterior / Interior Work Mar‐27 45 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 48.62 5E ‐05 0.83 9E ‐07 86% 14% 100% 0 0 5E ‐05 8E ‐06 0 0 8E ‐07 1E ‐07 Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐27 46 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 13.89 2E ‐05 0.24 3E ‐07 100% 100% 0 0 0 2E ‐05 0 0 0 3E ‐07 Site Work / Landscape May ‐27 47 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 13.89 2E ‐05 0.24 3E ‐07 100% 100% 0 0 0 2E ‐05 0 0 0 3E ‐07 Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐27 48 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 13.89 2E ‐05 0.24 3E ‐07 100% 100% 0 0 0 2E ‐05 0 0 0 3E ‐07 758.4 0.0008 13.01 1E ‐05
758.4 0.0008 13.01 1E ‐05
502.82 0.0006 8.6254 1E ‐05
479.21 0.0005 8.2203 9E ‐06
Linear Year 1 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 7: Off‐road Hauling Emissions (Exhaust)
Table 7‐1: Earthwork Quantities (CY)
Source: Greystar, 2021
Table 7‐2: Size of Haul Truck (CY)
9 Table 7‐3: Haul Trips Required (One‐way)
Total
Table 7‐4: Average Off‐site One‐way Haul Truck Trip Distance (mi) Table 7‐5: Annual Haul Trip Distribution (VMT)
Total VMT
Table 7‐6: Hauling ‐ Annual Running and Non‐Running Emissions (grams) Year
PM2.5 (Exh
Running) PM2.5  (Exh Idle) PM2.5  (Exh Total)
2023 20,236                       37                              20,273 Table 7‐7: Conversions
lbs / ton grams  / lbs
2000 453.59237
Table 7‐8: Hauling ‐ Annual Running and Non‐running Emissions (tons) Year
PM2.5 (Exh
Running) PM2.5  (Exh Idle) PM2.5  (Exh Total)
2023 0.02                           0.00                           0.02 Net Soil Export
71,500
15,889
742,011

46.7 Mass Excavation 2023
Clear and Grub 2023
Year / Phase
Year / Phase
Mass Excavation 2023
Clear and Grub 2023
Year / Phase
Clear and Grub 2023
Mass Excavation 2023
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 8: On‐road Motor Vehicle Emission Factors (PM2.5 Exhaust) Vehicle Type PM2.5 (Exh)
LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 0.00004
LHDT1‐LHDT2 0.01739
MHDT 0.02030
HHDT 0.02727
Vehicle Type PM2.5 (Exh)
LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 0.00000
LHDT1‐LHDT2 0.00023
MHDT 0.00360
HHDT 2.36E ‐03
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0); note exhaust emissions are only for diesel vehicles. Rate for LDA ‐LDT1‐LDT2 based on % of diesel emissions per overall
population. Rate for MHDT and HHDT based on diesel emissions per diesel population (i.e., assumes all MHDT and HHDT trips would be diesel).

Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0); note exhaust emissions are only for diesel vehicles. Rate for LDA‐LDT1‐LDT2 based on % of diesel emissions per overall population. Rate for MHDT and HHDT based on diesel emissions per diesel population (i.e., assumes all MHDT and HHDT trips would be diesel).

Table 8‐1: Mobile Source Emissions Running Rate (g/mi)
Table 8‐2: Mobile Source Emissions Trip Rate (g/trip)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 9: Scenario 1 ‐ Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Table 9‐1: Scenario 1 Off‐road Emissions by Month / Area Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 (Exh) A B C Park A B C Park
Clear and Grub Jul ‐23 1 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.00038927 0.00038927 0.00038927 0.00038927 Mass Excavation Aug ‐23 2 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 Mass Excavation Sep ‐23 3 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 Mass Excavation Oct ‐23 4 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 Mass Excavation Nov ‐23 5 All 0.00 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 0.0011025 Structural Concrete Dec ‐23 6 A 0.00 100% 100% 0.00140193 0 0 0 Structural Concrete Jan ‐24 7 A 0.00 100% 100% 0.00140193 0 0 0 Structural Concrete Feb ‐24 8 A,  B 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00070096 0.00070096 0 0 Structural Concrete Mar ‐24 9 A,  B 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00070096 0.00070096 0 0 Structural Concrete Apr ‐24 10 A,  B, C 0.00 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00046731 0.00046731 0.00046731 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In May ‐24 11 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00189803 0.00237253 0.00237253 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jun ‐24 12 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 100% 0.00189803 0.00474507 0 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jul ‐24 13 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 100% 0.00189803 0.00474507 0 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Aug ‐24 14 A  (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 0.01 14% 50% 36% 100% 0.00094901 0.00332155 0.00237253 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Sep ‐24 15 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00189803 0.00237253 0.00237253 0 Framing / Rough In Oct ‐24 16 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0 Framing / Rough In Nov ‐24 17 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0 Framing / Rough In Dec ‐24 18 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0 Framing / Rough In Jan ‐25 19 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 0 Framing / Rough In Feb ‐25 20 A  (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 0.00 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00163201 0.00163201 0.00163201 0 Framing / Rough In Mar ‐25 21 B  (Frame), C (Frame) 0.00 50% 50% 100% 0 0.00244802 0.00244802 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Apr ‐25 22 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work May ‐25 23 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jun ‐25 24 A  (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0 0.00489373 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jul ‐25 25 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Aug ‐25 26 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Sep ‐25 27 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 100% 0.00326249 0.00326249 0.00326249 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Oct ‐25 28 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 21% 21% 58% 100% 0.00203905 0.00203905 0.00570935 0 Exterior / Interior Work Nov ‐25 29 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Dec ‐25 30 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Jan ‐26 31 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Feb ‐26 32 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Mar ‐26 33 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 100% 0.00489373 0.00489373 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐26 34 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00323501 0.00404376 0.00404376 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape May ‐26 35 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00323501 0.00404376 0.00404376 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐26 36 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 100% 0.00323501 0.00404376 0.00404376 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jul ‐26 37 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 100% 0.0016175 0.0016175 0.00808751 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Aug ‐26 38 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 100% 0.0016175 0.0016175 0.00808751 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Sep ‐26 39 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 100% 0.0016175 0.0016175 0.00808751 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Oct ‐26 40 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 14% 86% 100% 0 0.0016175 0.00970502 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Nov ‐26 41 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 14% 86% 100% 0 0.0016175 0.00970502 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Dec ‐26 42 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 14% 86% 100% 0 0.0016175 0.00970502 0 Activity Breakdown by Area (%)
Total
PM2.5 Emissions Breakdown by Area (tons)Phase / Task Month  & Year Linear  Month Area Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jan ‐27 43 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.00970502 0.0016175 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Feb ‐27 44 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.00970502 0.0016175 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Mar ‐27 45 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.00970502 0.0016175 Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐27 46 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.01188816 Site Work / Landscape May ‐27 47 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.01188816 Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐27 48 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.01188816

0.04 0.08

0.12 0.14
Linear Year 1 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 4 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 10: Scenario 2 ‐ Off‐road PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Month, Area, and Linear Construction Year Table 10‐1: Scenario 2 Off‐road Emissions by Month / Area Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 (Exh) A B C Park A B C Park
Clear and Grub Jul ‐23 1 All 0.01 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.001681 0.001681 0.001681 0.00168099 Mass Excavation Aug ‐23 2 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963 Mass Excavation Sep ‐23 3 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963 Mass Excavation Oct ‐23 4 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963 Mass Excavation Nov ‐23 5 All 0.02 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.00399963 Structural Concrete Dec ‐23 6 A 0.01 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.005609 0 0 0 Structural Concrete Jan ‐24 7 A 0.01 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0.005609 0 0 0 Structural Concrete Feb ‐24 8 A,  B 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.002805 0.002805 0 0 Structural Concrete Mar ‐24 9 A,  B 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.002805 0.002805 0 0 Structural Concrete Apr ‐24 10 A,  B, C 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.00187 0.00187 0.00187 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In May ‐24 11 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.002311 0.002311 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jun ‐24 12 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 0% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.004621 0 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Jul ‐24 13 A  (Frame), B (Concrete) 0.01 29% 71% 0% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.004621 0 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Aug ‐24 14 A  (Frame), B (Concrete, Frame), C (Concrete) 0.01 14% 50% 36% 0% 100% 0.000924 0.003235 0.002311 0 Structural Concrete + Framing / Rough In Sep ‐24 15 A  (Frame), B (Concrete), C (Concrete) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.001848 0.002311 0.002311 0 Framing / Rough In Oct ‐24 16 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0 Framing / Rough In Nov ‐24 17 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0 Framing / Rough In Dec ‐24 18 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0 Framing / Rough In Jan ‐25 19 A  (Frame), B (Frame) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003091 0.003091 0 0 Framing / Rough In Feb ‐25 20 A  (Frame), B (Frame), C (Frame) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002061 0.002061 0.002061 0 Framing / Rough In Mar ‐25 21 B  (Frame), C (Frame) 0.01 0% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0 0.003091 0.003091 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Apr ‐25 22 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work May ‐25 23 A  (E/I), B (Framing), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jun ‐25 24 A  (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 50% 0% 50% 0% 100% 0.003818 0 0.003818 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Jul ‐25 25 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Aug ‐25 26 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Sep ‐25 27 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 0.002545 0.002545 0.002545 0 Framing / Rough In + Exterior / Interior Work Oct ‐25 28 A  (E/I), B (E/I), C (Framing) 0.01 21% 21% 58% 0% 100% 0.001591 0.001591 0.004455 0 Exterior / Interior Work Nov ‐25 29 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Dec ‐25 30 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Jan ‐26 31 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Feb ‐26 32 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work Mar ‐26 33 A  (E/I), B (E/I) 0.01 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0.003818 0.003818 0 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐26 34 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.002015 0.002519 0.002519 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape May ‐26 35 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.002015 0.002519 0.002519 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐26 36 A  (Site Work/ Landscape), B (E/I), C (E/I) 0.01 29% 36% 36% 0% 100% 0.002015 0.002519 0.002519 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jul ‐26 37 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 0% 100% 0.001008 0.001008 0.005038 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Aug ‐26 38 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 0% 100% 0.001008 0.001008 0.005038 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Sep ‐26 39 A  (Site Work/Landscape), B (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I) 0.01 14% 14% 71% 0% 100% 0.001008 0.001008 0.005038 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Oct ‐26 40 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 14% 86% 0% 100% 0 0.001008 0.006046 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Nov ‐26 41 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 14% 86% 0% 100% 0 0.001008 0.006046 0 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Dec ‐26 42 B  (Site Work/Landscape), C (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 14% 86% 0% 100% 0 0.001008 0.006046 0 Activity Breakdown by Area (%)
Total
PM2.5 Emissions Breakdown by Area (tons)Phase / Task Month & Year AreaLinear
Month
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Jan ‐27 43 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.006046 0.00100767 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Feb ‐27 44 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.006046 0.00100767 Exterior / Interior Work + Site Work / Landscape Mar ‐27 45 C  (E/I + Site Work/Landscape) + Park (Site Work/Landscape) 0.01 0% 0% 86% 14% 100% 0 0 0.006046 0.00100767 Site Work / Landscape Apr ‐27 46 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 0.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.00475591 Site Work / Landscape May ‐27 47 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 0.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.00475591 Site Work / Landscape Jun ‐27 48 Park  (Site Work/Landscape) 0.00 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0 0 0 0.00475591

0.11 0.08

0.09 0.08Linear Year 4 Total
Linear Year 3 Total
Linear Year 2 Total
Linear Year 1 Total
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 11: Scenario 1 ‐ Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Table 11‐1: Scenario 1 ‐ Monthly Emissions Calculations Emission Factor
(g/hp‐hr) Emissions (tons)
PM2.5 PM2.5
CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.0138 0.000714497 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.0138 0.000515988
CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.0138 0.00015908 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.0138 0.000167501 CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.0138 0.000714497 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.0138 0.000515988
CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.0138 0.00015908 CAT 623K Scraper T4 6 8 20 960 407 0.48 0.0138 0.002852924 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.0138 0.000167501 Structural Concrete,
Dec 2023 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 Structural Concrete,
Jan 2024 ‐ Apr 2024 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 3 8 20 480 97 0.37 0.276 0.005241168
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.138 0.004891416
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.138 0.004891416
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.0138 0.001401928 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.276 0.003494112
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.138 0.004891416
Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.0138 0.000623079 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.276 0.009293617
Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.184 0.001405823
Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.0138 0.000623079 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.276 0.009293617
Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.184 0.001405823
Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 97 0.37 0.276 0.010482335
Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.184 0.001405823
Source: OFFROAD2021
Exterior / Interior Work
Site Work / Landscape
Apr 2026 ‐ Dec 2026
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Jan 2027 ‐ Mar 2027
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Exterior / Interior Work,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Nov 2025 ‐ Dec 2025
Exterior / Interior Work,
Jan 2026 ‐ Mar 2026
Clear and Grub,
Jul 2023
Mass Excavation,
Aug ‐ Nov 2023
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
May 2024 ‐ Sep 2024
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Phase Horsepower Load  FactorEquipment Quantity Daily Hours In Use
Anticipated
Duration of
Use (days)
Total
Runtime
Hours
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 12: Scenario 2 ‐ Monthly PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions by Phase Table 12‐1: Scenario 2 ‐ Monthly Emissions Calculations Emission Factor
(g/hp‐hr) Emissions  (tons)
PM2.5 PM2.5
CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.044760064 0.002317458 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.098203865 0.003671882 CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.01602342 0.00018471 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.045305859 0.000549912 CAT 140 Grader T4 4 8 20 640 179 0.41 0.044760064 0.002317458 CAT D7 Dozer T4 2 8 20 320 265 0.40 0.098203865 0.003671882 CAT 320 Excavator T4 1 8 20 160 172 0.38 0.01602342 0.00018471 CAT 623K Scraper T4 6 8 20 960 407 0.48 0.044862305 0.009274548 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 2 8 20 320 93 0.37 0.045305859 0.000549912 Structural Concrete,
Dec 2023 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 Structural Concrete,
Jan 2024 ‐ Apr 2024 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 3 8 20 480 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000860346
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.041012351 0.001453684
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.041012351 0.001453684
Telehandler: Gradall T4 9 8 20 1440 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.005609087 TLB (T3) 2 8 20 320 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.000573564
Crane (T3) 3 8 20 480 231 0.29 0.041012351 0.001453684
Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.002492927 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.045305859 0.001525563
Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.397261426 0.003035212 Telehandler: Gradall T4 4 8 20 640 160 0.40 0.05521352 0.002492927 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 86 0.37 0.045305859 0.001525563
Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.397261426 0.003035212 Backhoe T3 6 8 20 960 97 0.37 0.045305859 0.001720693
Mini Excavator T4 6 8 20 960 19 0.38 0.397261426 0.003035212 Source: CARB 2017a for load factor information
Horsepower Load  FactorPhase Equipment Quantity Daily Hours In Use
Anticipated
Duration of
Use (days)
Total
Runtime
Hours
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Exterior / Interior Work,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Nov 2025 ‐ Dec 2025
Exterior / Interior Work,
Jan 2026 ‐ Mar 2026
Exterior / Interior Work
Site Work / Landscape
Apr 2026 ‐ Dec 2026
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Jan 2027 ‐ Mar 2027
Clear and Grub,
Jul 2023
Mass Excavation,
Aug ‐ Nov 2023
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
In,
May 2024 ‐ Sep 2024
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 13: Scenario 1 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Table 13‐1: Scenario 1 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Row Labels
Average of
Horsepower OFFROAD Cat
HP_Bin Load
Factor
PM2_5
g_hp‐hr
Backhoe T3 97 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.276 CAT 140 Grader T4 179 ConstMin ‐ Graders 300 0.41 0.014 CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 300 0.38 0.014 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.014 CAT 623K Scraper T4 407 ConstMin ‐ Scrapers 600 0.48 0.014 CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 ConstMin ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers 300 0.40 0.014 Crane (T3) 231 ConstMin ‐ Cranes 300 0.29 0.138
Mini Excavator T4 19 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 75 0.38 0.184 Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 ConstMin ‐ Rough Terrain Forklifts 175 0.4 0.014 TLB (T3) 86 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.276 Source: CARB 2017a
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 14: Scenario 2 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Table 14‐1: Scenario 2 ‐ Equipment Category and PM2.5 Emissions Assignment Row Labels
Average of
Horsepower OFFROAD Cat
HP_Bin Load
Factor
PM2_5
g_hp‐hr
Backhoe T3 97 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.045 CAT 140 Grader T4 179 ConstMin ‐ Graders 300 0.41 0.045 CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 300 0.38 0.016 CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.045 CAT 623K Scraper T4 407 ConstMin ‐ Scrapers 600 0.48 0.045 CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 ConstMin ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers 300 0.40 0.098 Crane (T3) 231 ConstMin ‐ Cranes 300 0.29 0.041
Mini Excavator T4 19 ConstMin ‐ Excavators 75 0.38 0.397 Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 ConstMin ‐ Rough Terrain Forklifts 175 0.4 0.055 TLB (T3) 86 ConstMin ‐ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 0.37 0.045 Source: OFFROAD2021
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 15: Tier III and Tier IV Emission Factors
Table 15‐1: U.S. EPA Tier III Emission Standards
PM PM10 PM2.5
50≤hp<75 (I‐T4) 75 0.22 0.22 0.2024
75≤hp<100 100 0.3 0.3 0.276
100≤hp<175 175 0.22 0.22 0.2024
175≤hp<300 300 0.15 0.15 0.138
300≤hp<600 600 0.15 0.15 0.138
600≤hp<750 750 0.15 0.15 0.138
Mobile > 750 hp (I‐T4) 9999 0.07 0.07 0.0644
Source: CARB 2017b; CARB 2005
Table 11‐5: U.S. EPA Tier IV Emission Standards
PM PM10 PM2.5
50≤hp<75 (I‐T4) 75 0.2 0.2 0.184
75≤hp<100 100 0.015 0.015 0.0138
100≤hp<175 175 0.015 0.015 0.0138
175≤hp<300 300 0.015 0.015 0.0138
300≤hp<600 600 0.015 0.015 0.0138
600≤hp<750 750 0.015 0.015 0.0138
Mobile > 750 hp (I‐T4) 9999 0.03 0.03 0.0276
Source: CARB 2017b; CARB 2005
EMFAC (g/hp‐hr)
Assigned HP BinMaximum Horsepower
Maximum Horsepower Assigned  HP Bin
EMFAC (g/hp‐hr)
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Table 11‐3: U.S. EPA Tier III Emission Standards ‐ Reformat PM2.5
50≤hp<75 75 0
75≤hp<100 100 0
100≤hp<175 175 0
175≤hp<300 300 0
300≤hp<600 600 0
600≤hp<750 750 0
Mobile > 750 hp 9999 0
Table 11‐4: U.S. EPA Tier IV Emission Standards ‐ Reformat PM2.5
50≤hp<75 75 0
75≤hp<100 100 0
100≤hp<175 175 0
175≤hp<300 300 0
300≤hp<600 600 0
600≤hp<750 750 0
Mobile > 750 hp 9999 0
Maximum Horsepower Assigned  HP Bin
Maximum Horsepower Assigned  HP Bin
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 16: Off‐road Construction Equipment List by Phase Table 16‐1: Phased Equipment List
Phase Equipment Horsepower Quantity
Anticipated Duration of
Use (days)
CAT 140 Grader T4 179 4 20
CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 2 20
CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 1 20
CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 2 20
CAT 140 Grader T4 179 4 80
CAT D7 Dozer T4 265 2 80
CAT 320 Excavator T4 172 1 80
CAT 623K Scraper T4 407 6 80
CAT 415 Backhoe T4 93 2 80
Structural Concrete,
Dec 2023 Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 20
Structural Concrete,
Jan 2024 ‐ Apr 2024 Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 80
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 100
TLB (T3) 97 3 100
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 60
TLB (T3) 97 2 60
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 60
TLB (T3) 97 2 60
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 140
TLB (T3) 97 2 140
Crane (T3) 231 3 140
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 40
TLB (T3) 97 2 40
Crane (T3) 231 3 40
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 9 60
TLB (T3) 97 2 60
Crane (T3) 231 3 60
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 4 180
Backhoe T3 86 6 180
Mini Excavator T4 19 6 180
Telehandler: Gradall T4 160 4 60
Backhoe T3 86 6 60
Mini Excavator T4 19 6 60
Backhoe T3 97 6 60
Mini Excavator T4 19 6 60
Exterior / Interior Work,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Apr 2025 ‐ Oct 2025
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Clear and Grub,
Jul 2023
Mass Excavation,
Aug ‐ Nov 2023
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Structural Concrete,
Structural Framing / Rough‐In,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Exterior / Interior Work,
Nov 2025 ‐ Dec 2025
Exterior / Interior Work,
Jan 2026 ‐ Mar 2026
Exterior / Interior Work
Site Work / Landscape
Apr 2026 ‐ Dec 2026
Exterior / Interior Work,
Site Work / Landscape,
Jan 2027 ‐ Mar 2027
Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 17: OFFROAD2021 Output File for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub‐Area
Region: Santa Clara (SF)
Calendar Year: 2022
Scenario: All Adopted Rules ‐ Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower‐hours/year for Horsepower‐hours Region Calendar   Vehicle Category Model  YearHorsepowFuel HC_tpd ROG_tpd TOG_tpd CO_tpd NOx_tpd CO2_tpd PM10_tp PM2.5_t pSOx_tpd NH3_tpd Fuel  ConsTotal_Act Total_PopHorsepo Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 25 Diesel 1.4E ‐06 1.7E ‐06 2E ‐06 7.9E ‐06 6.9E ‐06 0.00085 5.3E ‐07 4.9E ‐07 7.8E ‐09 6.9E ‐09 27.4511 66.3109 0.13843 1657.77 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 50 Diesel 4.1E ‐05 4.9E ‐05 5.9E ‐05 0.00018 0.00014 0.01371 1.5E ‐05 1.3E ‐05 1.3E ‐07 1.1E ‐07 444.753 645.081 1.47659 26596.1 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.1E ‐05 1.4E ‐05 1.6E ‐05 4.7E ‐05 0.0001 0.00553 9.6E ‐06 8.9E ‐06 5.1E ‐08 4.5E ‐08 179.403 172.05 0.46143 11972 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00028 0.00034 0.0004 0.00234 0.00302 0.30978 0.0002 0.00018 2.9E ‐06 2.5E ‐06 10050.5 7700.34 17.3499 676570 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00068 0.00082 0.00097 0.00623 0.00825 0.94858 0.00044 0.00041 8.7E ‐06 7.7E ‐06 30775.8 14102.1 30.8699 2062738 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00084 0.00102 0.00121 0.0056 0.01159 1.63565 0.00048 0.00044 1.5E ‐05 1.3E ‐05 53067 16161.5 34.2846 3565167 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Cranes Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00106 0.00128 0.00152 0.01026 0.01407 2.85185 0.00056 0.00052 2.6E ‐05 2.3E ‐05 92525.2 16929.3 34.1461 6213774 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 50 Diesel 0.00012 0.00015 0.00017 0.00054 0.00041 0.0444 4.1E ‐05 3.8E ‐05 4.1E ‐07 3.6E ‐07 1440.46 1397.59 4.09535 58755.1 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.5E ‐05 1.8E ‐05 2.1E ‐05 5.7E ‐05 0.00014 0.00478 1E ‐05 9.4E ‐06 4.4E ‐08 3.9E ‐08 155.032 99.7408 0.49144 6976.26 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00181 0.00219 0.0026 0.01439 0.01861 1.95605 0.00149 0.00137 1.8E ‐05 1.6E ‐05 63461.9 32668.3 69.8667 2854311 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00131 0.00158 0.00188 0.01325 0.01556 2.13941 0.00087 0.0008 2E ‐05 1.7E ‐05 69410.7 20963.2 46.2365 3127562 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00124 0.00151 0.00179 0.00834 0.01789 2.24435 0.00072 0.00066 2.1E ‐05 1.8E ‐05 72815.6 15991.4 35.8343 3285895 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Crawler Tractors Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00271 0.00328 0.00391 0.02301 0.03539 7.8481 0.00137 0.00126 7.2E ‐05 6.4E ‐05 254623 29775.9 62.6999 1.1E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 25 Diesel 3E ‐06 3.7E ‐06 4.4E ‐06 1E ‐05 7E ‐06 0.00054 9.8E ‐07 9E ‐07 4.9E ‐09 4.4E ‐09 17.6358 32.1571 0.12311 803.929 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 50 Diesel 0.00119 0.00144 0.00171 0.0129 0.01117 1.77527 0.00048 0.00044 1.6E ‐05 1.4E ‐05 57596.6 73268.8 100.126 2623877 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.3E ‐06 1.5E ‐06 1.8E ‐06 5E ‐06 1.2E ‐05 0.00042 9E ‐07 8.3E ‐07 3.8E ‐09 3.4E ‐09 13.5731 12.9847 0.04104 688.191 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.0009 0.00109 0.0013 0.01527 0.01135 2.3041 0.0006 0.00055 2.1E ‐05 1.9E ‐05 74754.1 46724 72.1403 3802413 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00147 0.00178 0.00211 0.02833 0.01558 4.86318 0.00076 0.0007 4.5E ‐05 4E ‐05 157781 54686.9 92.4528 7985946 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00148 0.00179 0.00213 0.0131 0.01683 6.20881 0.00054 0.00049 5.7E ‐05 5.1E ‐05 201438 46607.3 79.9781 1E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Excavators Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.0022 0.00267 0.00317 0.02207 0.02145 11.0422 0.00072 0.00066 0.0001 9E ‐05 358251 53636.7 83.425 1.8E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 25 Diesel 9.6E ‐07 1.2E ‐06 1.4E ‐06 4.5E ‐06 3.5E ‐06 0.00034 4.3E ‐07 3.9E ‐07 3.1E ‐09 2.8E ‐09 11.0732 18.8425 0.08247 471.061 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 50 Diesel 3.6E ‐05 4.4E ‐05 5.2E ‐05 0.00015 0.00011 0.0114 1.2E ‐05 1.1E ‐05 1E ‐07 9.3E ‐08 369.912 421.459 1.19586 15737.4 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 75 Diesel 1.2E ‐05 1.4E ‐05 1.7E ‐05 4.7E ‐05 0.00011 0.00492 9.2E ‐06 8.4E ‐06 4.5E ‐08 4E ‐08 159.568 105 0.32989 7366.33 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00036 0.00044 0.00052 0.00222 0.00345 0.26122 0.00027 0.00025 2.4E ‐06 2.1E ‐06 8475.02 4537.92 12.1236 406734 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00201 0.00243 0.00289 0.0194 0.02277 2.97026 0.00126 0.00116 2.7E ‐05 2.4E ‐05 96367 30583.9 64.824 4542451 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00299 0.00362 0.00431 0.01544 0.04268 6.26424 0.00141 0.0013 5.8E ‐05 5.1E ‐05 203236 44400.3 58.4735 9612140 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Graders Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00014 0.00017 0.00021 0.00058 0.00227 0.26924 7E ‐05 6.4E ‐05 2.5E ‐06 2.2E ‐06 8735.08 1169.27 1.52575 411692 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 50 Diesel 7.5E ‐05 9E ‐05 0.00011 0.00042 0.00037 0.0487 2.7E ‐05 2.5E ‐05 4.5E ‐07 4E ‐07 1579.9 1705.13 4.80549 66126.6 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 75 Diesel 0.00012 0.00015 0.00018 0.00059 0.00111 0.07439 0.00011 9.8E ‐05 6.8E ‐07 6.1E ‐07 2413.36 1570.59 4.64531 113368 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00015 0.00018 0.00022 0.00255 0.00213 0.39542 0.00011 0.0001 3.7E ‐06 3.2E ‐06 12828.8 7386.8 18.5812 599548 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00022 0.00027 0.00032 0.00365 0.00269 0.6429 0.00013 0.00012 5.9E ‐06 5.2E ‐06 20858.2 6136.52 15.8982 968925 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00012 0.00014 0.00017 0.00096 0.00189 0.50206 5.8E ‐05 5.3E ‐05 4.6E ‐06 4.1E ‐06 16288.9 3441 7.64874 758092 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Pavers Aggregate 600 Diesel 1.6E ‐05 1.9E ‐05 2.3E ‐05 0.00017 0.00022 0.09131 6.4E ‐06 5.9E ‐06 8.4E ‐07 7.5E ‐07 2962.35 365.966 0.84096 137887 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 50 Diesel 0.00103 0.00125 0.00149 0.00747 0.00701 0.99853 0.00042 0.00039 9.2E ‐06 8.1E ‐06 32396.1 42050.9 121.434 1501582 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 75 Diesel 3.4E ‐05 4.1E ‐05 4.9E ‐05 0.00013 0.0003 0.01108 2.2E ‐05 2E ‐05 1E ‐07 9E ‐08 359.44 265.391 1.15338 18420.2 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00072 0.00088 0.00104 0.0101 0.00919 1.55143 0.00053 0.00048 1.4E ‐05 1.3E ‐05 50334.6 29715.7 89.5515 2594003 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00042 0.0005 0.0006 0.00891 0.00524 1.61487 0.00024 0.00022 1.5E ‐05 1.3E ‐05 52392.7 18793.3 52.3963 2702154 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 300 Diesel 9.2E ‐05 0.00011 0.00013 0.00078 0.0013 0.26745 4.9E ‐05 4.5E ‐05 2.5E ‐06 2.2E ‐06 8677.24 2067.51 6.7143 447119 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rollers Aggregate 600 Diesel 3.7E ‐05 4.5E ‐05 5.3E ‐05 0.00041 0.00051 0.15676 1.7E ‐05 1.6E ‐05 1.4E ‐06 1.3E ‐06 5085.84 746.39 2.43033 260686 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 25 Diesel 2.9E ‐07 3.5E ‐07 4.1E ‐07 3.6E ‐06 4.4E ‐06 0.00052 2.5E ‐07 2.3E ‐07 4.8E ‐09 4.3E ‐09 16.9566 29.3235 0.09507 733.087 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 50 Diesel 5.6E ‐05 6.8E ‐05 8.1E ‐05 0.00037 0.00035 0.05034 2E ‐05 1.9E ‐05 4.6E ‐07 4.1E ‐07 1633.25 1479.86 5.41917 70688.9 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 75 Diesel 3.8E ‐06 4.6E ‐06 5.5E ‐06 1.6E ‐05 3.8E ‐05 0.00139 2.6E ‐06 2.4E ‐06 1.3E ‐08 1.1E ‐08 45.0245 32.636 0.14261 2165.08 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 100 Diesel 0.00081 0.00098 0.00116 0.0242 0.01452 3.97708 0.00039 0.00036 3.7E ‐05 3.2E ‐05 129032 64411.1 227.985 6202049 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 175 Diesel 0.00035 0.00042 0.0005 0.00498 0.00371 0.87474 0.00025 0.00023 8.1E ‐06 7.1E ‐06 28380.1 10889 39.7406 1365085 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 300 Diesel 1.2E ‐05 1.4E ‐05 1.7E ‐05 0.00012 0.00019 0.0642 4.4E ‐06 4E ‐06 5.9E ‐07 5.2E ‐07 2082.94 476.398 1.90146 100168 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rough Terrain ForkliftsAggregate 600 Diesel 2.6E ‐06 3.1E ‐06 3.7E ‐06 4.3E ‐05 2.7E ‐05 0.02387 4.1E ‐07 3.7E ‐07 2.2E ‐07 1.9E ‐07 774.406 97.3106 0.38029 37484.4 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 50 Diesel 7.9E ‐05 9.5E ‐05 0.00011 0.00047 0.00034 0.04436 2.8E ‐05 2.6E ‐05 4.1E ‐07 3.6E ‐07 1439.11 1526.47 1.6068 63316.2 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 75 Diesel 6.2E ‐05 7.5E ‐05 8.9E ‐05 0.00038 0.0006 0.04459 4.5E ‐05 4.2E ‐05 4.1E ‐07 3.6E ‐07 1446.78 1027.98 1.37166 70348.3 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 100 Diesel 0.00015 0.00018 0.00022 0.00112 0.00154 0.14148 0.00012 0.00011 1.3E ‐06 1.2E ‐06 4590.15 2637.5 3.05685 222930 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.0002 0.00024 0.00029 0.00144 0.00221 0.19922 0.00014 0.00013 1.8E ‐06 1.6E ‐06 6463.55 2217.39 2.8217 316029 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00018 0.00022 0.00026 0.00123 0.0024 0.2154 0.00011 0.0001 2E ‐06 1.8E ‐06 6988.52 1539.95 2.19466 340683 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00164 0.00198 0.00236 0.01575 0.0205 2.24127 0.00092 0.00085 2.1E ‐05 1.8E ‐05 72715.6 9567.94 13.168 3531445 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 25 Diesel 6.6E ‐08 8E ‐08 9.5E ‐08 1.9E ‐06 1.7E ‐06 0.00036 6E ‐09 5.5E ‐09 3.3E ‐09 2.9E ‐09 11.5201 16.6094 0.04039 415.234 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 50 Diesel 1.4E ‐05 1.6E ‐05 2E ‐05 4.6E ‐05 3.3E ‐05 0.00283 4.6E ‐06 4.2E ‐06 2.6E ‐08 2.3E ‐08 91.691 86.784 0.24233 3361.14 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 75 Diesel 4E ‐05 4.8E ‐05 5.7E ‐05 0.00021 0.00037 0.02494 3.2E ‐05 2.9E ‐05 2.3E ‐07 2E ‐07 809.148 477.889 1.09049 32401.9 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 100 Diesel 9.6E ‐05 0.00012 0.00014 0.00085 0.00122 0.1124 9E ‐05 8.3E ‐05 1E ‐06 9.2E ‐07 3646.78 1612.17 2.66563 145391 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 175 Diesel 0.00093 0.00113 0.00135 0.00973 0.01111 1.51641 0.00059 0.00055 1.4E ‐05 1.2E ‐05 49198.2 11743.5 26.2928 1960227 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 300 Diesel 0.00095 0.00115 0.00137 0.00598 0.01234 1.78727 0.00054 0.00049 1.6E ‐05 1.5E ‐05 57986 10432.1 25.687 2329994 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Scrapers Aggregate 600 Diesel 0.00847 0.01025 0.01219 0.07593 0.111 22.1479 0.00423 0.0039 0.0002 0.00018 718563 68078.7 141.763 2.9E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 25 Diesel 00000000000000 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 50 Diesel 0.00147 0.00178 0.00212 0.01234 0.01045 1.49257 0.00056 0.00052 1.4E ‐05 1.2E ‐05 48424.8 60855.9 117.712 2303931 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 75 Diesel 0.00055 0.00066 0.00079 0.00221 0.0052 0.2198 0.00042 0.00039 2E ‐06 1.8E ‐06 7131.22 5218.16 22.7631 374369 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 100 Diesel 0.00917 0.0111 0.01321 0.15758 0.11444 23.8383 0.00601 0.00553 0.00022 0.00019 773407 486192 776.49 4E+07 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 175 Diesel 0.00131 0.00159 0.00189 0.02448 0.01393 4.15956 0.00071 0.00065 3.8E ‐05 3.4E ‐05 134952 49635.5 89.412 7118357 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 300 Diesel 0.00079 0.00095 0.00113 0.00614 0.00997 2.62225 0.00035 0.00032 2.4E ‐05 2.1E ‐05 85076.2 21400.4 37.9796 4471436 Santa Clara 2022 Construction  and Mining ‐ Tractors/Loaders/BackAggregate 600 Diesel 0.00088 0.00107 0.00127 0.00798 0.0097 3.42296 0.00036 0.00033 3.2E ‐05 2.8E ‐05 111054 17318.6 31.9504 5871071 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

Sheet 18: OFFROAD2021 Output File for Santa Clara (SF) Sub‐Area, Year 2022 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.0) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub‐Area
Region: Santa Clara (SF)
Calendar Year: 2022
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar  Ye Vehicle CateModel Year Speed Fuel Population Total  VMT CVMT EVMT Trips Energy  CoNOx_RUNEX NOx_IDLEX NOx_STREX NOx_TOTEX PM2.5_RUN PM2.5_IDLE XPM2.5_STRE PM2.5_TOTE Santa Clara  2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3.8273666 105.19135 105.19135 0 76.578 0 0.0010721 0 0.0001043 0.0011764 6.702E ‐07 0 1.432E ‐07 8.134E ‐07 Santa Clara  2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8126.6301 984491.31 984491.31 0 118999 0 2.6528293 0.6073383 0.3338163 3.593984 0.0295957 0.0003092 0 0.0299 049 Santa Clara  2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural  Gas 660.77564 47681.358 47681.358 0 5809.4 0 0.0713086 0.0099214 0 0.08123 9.981E ‐05 1.629E ‐05 0 0.0001161 Santa Clara  2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 604047.78 22374250 22374250 0 2805661 0 1.3266694 0 0.8904556 2.2171251 0.031074 0 0.0063766 0.0374506 Santa Clara  2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1988.8469 60930.092 60930.092 0 8564.5 0 0.0177008 0 0 0.0177008 0.0013416 0 0 0.0013416 Santa Clara  2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 49768.561 2058455.9 0 2058456 247156 794734 00000000 Santa Clara  2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug ‐in Hybr 14080.335 626833.53 326494.83 300339 69204.8 90711.2 0.0023616 0 0.0357549 0.0381165 0.0004963 0 0.0001738 0.0006701 Santa Clara  2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 54974.085 1779154.4 1779154.4 0 245182 0 0.313861 0 0.115931 0.429792 0.0038659 0 0.0008124 0.0046783 Santa Clara  2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28.886015 444.57775 444.57775 0 84.9575 0 0.0008155 0 0 0.0008155 0.0001182 0 0 0.0001182 Santa Clara  2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 182.99279 6367.0471 0 6367.05 860.935 2458.21 00000000 Santa Clara  2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug ‐in Hybr 24.315774 1158.9526 555.22679 603.726 119.512 182.343 4.016E ‐06 0 6.175E ‐05 6.576E ‐05 5.363E ‐07 0 1.928E ‐07 7.291E ‐07 Santa Clara  2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 274728.48 9911729.9 9911729.9 0 1286654 0 0.9529012 0 0.5490569 1.5019581 0.0142872 0 0.0029151 0.0172023 Santa Clara  2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 933.78803 35569.229 35569.229 0 4479.45 0 0.0019401 0 0 0.0019401 0.0002202 0 0 0.0002202 Santa Clara  2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 669.35851 23693.948 0 23693.9 3436.2 9147.82 00000000 Santa Clara  2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug ‐in Hybr 1256.2802 57825.985 28723.513 29102.5 6174.62 8789.81 0.0002078 0 0.0031901 0.0033979 3.599E ‐05 0 1.293E ‐05 4.891E ‐05 Santa Clara  2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 19023.539 692949.18 692949.18 0 283422 0 0.1717873 0.000809 0.2119336 0.3845298 0.0012727 0 0.0001109 0.0 013836 Santa Clara  2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9466.8975 364941.29 364941.29 0 119082 0 0.8211642 0.0224257 0 0.84359 0.0169809 0.0002834 0 0.0172643 Santa Clara  2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2479.1193 89333.801 89333.801 0 36935.2 0 0.020804 0.0001058 0.0272396 0.0481494 0.0001499 0 1.173E ‐05 0.0001616 Santa Clara  2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4276.1747 167672.01 167672.01 0 53788.9 0 0.2951305 0.0099664 0 0.3050969 0.0068032 0.0001276 0 0.0069309 Santa Clara  2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 27595.089 162923.97 162923.97 0 55190.2 0 0.1133439 0 0.009846 0.1231899 0.000326 0 0.0002127 0.0005387 Santa Clara  2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 150747.25 5216511.8 5216511.8 0 697659 0 0.7864526 0 0.3979919 1.1844445 0.007801 0 0.0017343 0.0095353 Santa Clara  2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2337.3284 86668.847 86668.847 0 11158.5 0 0.0055554 0 0 0.0055554 0.000521 0 0 0.000521 Santa Clara  2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 623.69751 22215.798 0 22215.8 3205.62 8577.13 00000000 Santa Clara  2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug ‐in Hybr 789.56121 33722.809 17285.181 16437.6 3880.69 4964.65 0.000125 0 0.002005 0.00213 2.687E ‐05 0 1.006E ‐05 3.694E ‐05 Santa Clara  2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2642.0841 23105.283 23105.283 0 264.314 0 0.0140449 0 0.0001178 0.0141626 4.882E ‐05 0 1.344E ‐07 4.895E ‐05 Santa Clara  2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 940.8008 9155.2096 9155.2096 0 94.0801 0 0.0447914 0 0 0.0447914 0.0010562 0 0 0.0010562 Santa Clara  2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1426.5351 69284.182 69284.182 0 28542.1 0 0.0524052 0.0001385 0.0145449 0.0670886 0.0001094 0 1.866E ‐05 0.0001281 Santa Clara  2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10189.551 428042.28 428042.28 0 121267 0 0.8170638 0.1717031 0.1982834 1.1870503 0.009577 0.0004812 0 0.0100 582 Santa Clara  2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural  Gas 84.480523 3914.2047 3914.2047 0 796.889 0 0.0006991 0.000603 0 0.0013021 4.44E ‐06 1.51E ‐06 0 5.95E ‐06 Santa Clara  2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 470.92336 21653.295 21653.295 0 9422.23 0 0.0142339 3.372E ‐05 0.0042277 0.0184953 2.06E ‐05 0 2.726E ‐06 2.333E ‐05 Santa Clara  2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 852.16788 61336.681 61336.681 0 8739.29 0 0.0967031 0.0076905 0.0140947 0.1184882 0.001468 8.795E ‐06 0 0.0014768 Santa Clara  2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural  Gas 6.1241899 392.3599 392.3599 0 54.5053 0 0.0001131 1.058E ‐05 0 0.0001237 3.122E ‐07 2.151E ‐08 0 3.337E ‐07 Santa Clara  2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 160.41389 7959.4302 7959.4302 0 641.656 0 0.0045862 0.0001637 0.0004874 0.0052373 7.484E ‐06 0 3.893E ‐07 7.873E ‐06 Santa Clara  2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 662.51623 15413.711 15413.711 0 9593.24 0 0.0719641 0.0167041 0.0047653 0.0934335 0.0003757 1.671E ‐05 0 0.0003924 Santa Clara  2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural  Gas 22.596767 578.35316 578.35316 0 327.201 0 0.0003882 0.0001319 0 0.0005201 2.154E ‐06 2.681E ‐07 0 2.422E ‐06 Santa Clara  2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 45.811044 4784.0366 4784.0366 0 183.244 0 0.0001446 0 0.0001109 0.0002555 4.742E ‐06 0 1.794E ‐08 4.76E ‐06 Santa Clara  2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 435.64749 48716.135 48716.135 0 1742.59 0 0.0207421 0 0 0.0207421 0.0003771 0 0 0.0003771 Santa Clara  2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.0467569 199.00273 0 199.003 20.187 346.91 00000000 Santa Clara  2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural  Gas 41.848751 4783.781 4783.781 0 167.395 0 0.0003099 0 0 0.0003099 1.488E ‐06 0 0 1.488E ‐06 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1

PM2.5_PMT PM2.5_PMB PM2.5_TOTAPM10_RUNEPM10_IDLEXPM10_STREXPM10_TOTE PM10_PMTWPM10_PMBWPM10_TOTA CO2_RUNEX CO2_IDLEX CO2_STREX CO2_TOTEX CH4_RUNEX CH4_IDLEX CH4_STREX CH4_TOTEX N2O_RUNE X

5.798E‐07 4.235E ‐06 5.628E ‐06 7.289E ‐07 0 1.557E ‐07 8.846E ‐07 2.319E ‐06 1.21E ‐05 1.53E ‐05 0.2791207 0 0.0041911 0.2833117 4.86E ‐05 0 1.369E ‐08 4.862E ‐05 2.689E ‐05

0.0095165 0.0303718 0.0697932 0.0309339 0.0003232 0 0.0312571 0.0380661 0.0867765 0.1560997 1820.4969 113.56928 0 1934.0662 0.0015826 0.002121 6 0 0.0037042 0.28682

0.000473 0.0025016 0.0030908 0.0001085 1.771E ‐05 0 0.0001263 0.0018921 0.0071475 0.0091659 75.123548 7.5145282 0 82.638076 0.1413081 0.0263175 0 0.1676256 0.0153144

0.0493268 0.065505 0.1522823 0.0337954 0 0.0069349 0.0407303 0.1973071 0.1871571 0.4251945 7081.7798 0 226.79203 7308.5718 0.0721315 0 0.251318 6 0.3234502 0.1330301

0.0001343 0.0001807 0.0016566 0.0014023 0 0 0.0014023 0.0005373 0.0005162 0.0024558 15.868953 0 0 15.868953 0.0001014 0 0 0.0001014 0.0025002

0.0045381 0.0034736 0.0080117 0000 0.0181525 0.0099245 0.0280769 000000000

0.0013819 0.0009451 0.0029972 0.0005398 0 0.000189 0.0007288 0.0055277 0.0027004 0.0089569 100.34391 0 5.7884048 106.13232 0.0002604 0 0.012055 3 0.0123157 0.0002854

0.0039224 0.0063469 0.0149476 0.0042042 0 0.0008834 0.0050877 0.0156895 0.018134 0.0389111 663.12318 0 24.410673 687.53385 0.0152942 0 0.032476 7 0.0477709 0.0219232

9.801E‐07 1.828E ‐06 0.000121 0.0001235 0 0 0.0001235 3.921E ‐06 5.224E ‐06 0.0001327 0.2037004 0 0 0.2037004 6.853E ‐06 0 0 6.853E ‐06 3.209E ‐05

1.404E‐05 1.081E ‐05 2.485E ‐0 50000 5.615E‐05 3.09E ‐05 8.705E ‐0 5000000000

2.555E‐06 1.758E ‐06 5.042E ‐06 5.833E ‐07 0 2.097E ‐07 7.93E ‐07 1.022E ‐05 5.022E ‐06 1.604E ‐05 0.1706417 0 0.0108123 0.181454 4.418E ‐07 0 2.078E ‐05 2.122E ‐05 4.829E ‐07

0.0218516 0.0341334 0.0731874 0.0155385 0 0.0031704 0.0187089 0.0874065 0.097524 0.2036394 3910.1925 0 130.62336 4040.8159 0.0373459 0 0.131620 4 0.1689663 0.0755945

7.842E
‐05 0.0001211 0.0004198 0.0002302 0 0 0.0002302 0.0003137 0.000346 0.0008899 12.54006 0 0 12.54006 2.595E ‐05 0 0 2.595E ‐05 0.0019757

5.224E‐05 3.98E ‐05 9.204E ‐0 50000 0.0002089 0.0001137 0.0003227 000000000

0.0001275 8.744E ‐05 0.0002638 3.914E ‐05 0 1.406E ‐05 5.32E ‐05 0.0005099 0.0002498 0.000813 8.8277956 0 0.602106 9.4299016 2.286E ‐05 0 0.0010738 0.0010967 2.499E ‐05

0.0015277 0.020853 0.0237642 0.0013842 0 0.0001206 0.0015047 0.0061108 0.05958 0.0671955 695.59136 2.5467808 8.0734562 706.21159 0.0081597 0.0 024847 0.0112423 0.0218867 0.0095566

0.0012068 0.0109822 0.0294533 0.0177487 0.0002963 0 0.0180449 0.0048273 0.0313778 0.05425 257.51943 1.4067784 0 258.92621 0.0037673 5.32E ‐05 0 0.0038205 0.0405723

0.0001969 0.0031364 0.0034949 0.000163 0 1.275E ‐05 0.0001757 0.0007878 0.0089611 0.0099246 100.1489 0.3827625 1.054539 101.58621 0.0008183 0.0003275 0.0014359 0.0025818 0.0011874

0.0005545 0.0058867 0.0133721 0.0071108 0.0001334 0 0.0072442 0.0022179 0.0168192 0.0262814 142.95599 1.0130203 0 143.96901 0.0015378 2.403E ‐05 0 0.0015618 0.0225228

0.0001796 0.0007543 0.0014725 0.000348 0 0.0002256 0.0005736 0.0007184 0.0021551 0.0034471 34.438073 0 3.2885709 37.726644 0.0327048 0 0.012185 7 0.0448905 0.0076024

0.0115004 0.0183602 0.039396 0.0084834 0 0.001886 0.0103694 0.0460018 0.0524576 0.1088288 2496.914 0 86.280554 2583.1945 0.0288535 0 0.0917946 0 .1206481 0.0545154

0.0001911 0.0003012 0.0010133 0.0005446 0 0 0.0005446 0.0007643 0.0008607 0.0021696 39.856516 0 0 39.856516 5.283E ‐05 0 0 5.283E ‐05 0.0062794

4.898E‐05 3.729E ‐05 8.627E ‐0 50000 0.0001959 0.0001066 0.0003025 000000000

7.435E‐05 5.091E ‐05 0.0001622 2.923E ‐05 0 1.094E ‐05 4.017E ‐05 0.0002974 0.0001455 0.000483 5.3123739 0 0.4627999 5.7751738 1.368E ‐05 0 0.000671 0.0006847 1.486E ‐05

7.641E‐05 0.0004013 0.0005267 5.309E ‐05 0 1.461E ‐07 5.324E ‐05 0.0003056 0.0011466 0.0015054 49.646262 0 0.0093627 49.655625 0.0005519 0 1.121E ‐05 0.0005631 0.0007887

4.037E‐05 0.0001582 0.0012547 0.0011039 0 0 0.0011039 0.0001615 0.000452 0.0017174 10.908222 0 0 10.908222 5.919E ‐05 0 0 5.919E ‐05 0.0017186

0.0002291 0.0012033 0.0015605 0.000119 0 2.03E ‐05 0.0001393 0.0009165 0.0034381 0.0044938 138.94929 0.8530219 1.5171131 141.31943 0.001709 0.0003931 0.0016073 0.0037093 0.002365

0.0014155 0.0075216 0.0189953 0.01001 0.000503 0 0.010513 0.005662 0.0214903 0.0376653 546.49468 26.104679 0 572.59936 0.0011448 0.0001506 0 0.0 012954 0.0861005

1.294E‐05 6.908E ‐05 8.798E ‐05 4.829E ‐06 1.643E ‐06 0 6.472E ‐06 5.178E ‐05 0.0001974 0.0002556 4.3247209 0.4852229 0 4.8099438 0.0031319 0.0016685 0 0.0048005 0.0008816

7.161E‐05 0.0003742 0.0004692 2.241E ‐05 0 2.965E ‐06 2.537E ‐05 0.0002864 0.0010693 0.0013811 43.068868 0.199452 0.3338047 43.602125 0.0004097 0.000101 0.0003817 0.0008924 0.0006676

0.0002028 0.0012224 0.002902 0.0015344 9.193E ‐06 0 0.0015436 0.0008113 0.0034926 0.0058475 87.08415 1.5043979 0 88.588548 0.0001654 1.966E ‐05 0 0.000185 0.0137201

1.298E‐06 6.984E ‐06 8.615E ‐06 3.395E ‐07 2.34E ‐08 0 3.629E ‐07 5.19E ‐06 1.995E ‐05 2.551E ‐05 0.4476617 0.0079893 0 0.4556511 0.0003248 3.109E ‐05 0 0.0003559 9.126E ‐05

1.755E‐05 0.0001379 0.0001634 8.14E ‐06 0 4.234E ‐07 8.563E ‐06 7.019E ‐05 0.0003941 0.0004728 7.1948993 0.4626456 0.0418346 7.6993795 0.0001091 0.0004348 5.29E ‐05 0.0005967 0.0002455

5.097E‐05 0.0002671 0.0007105 0.0003927 1.747E ‐05 0 0.0004101 0.0002039 0.0007632 0.0013772 19.588863 1.640509 0 21.229372 4.815E ‐05 5.975E ‐06 0 5.413E ‐05 0.0030862

1.913E‐06 1.002E ‐05 1.436E ‐05 2.342E ‐06 2.916E ‐07 0 2.634E ‐06 7.65E ‐06 2.864E ‐05 3.892E ‐05 0.8172571 0.1008818 0 0.9181389 0.0022631 0.0003877 0 0.0026508 0.0001666

1.055E‐05 0.000168 0.0001833 5.157E ‐06 0 1.951E ‐08 5.176E ‐06 4.219E ‐05 0.0004799 0.0005273 5.1397058 0 0.0076666 5.1473724 1.184E ‐05 0 1.069E ‐05 2.252E ‐05 2.213E ‐05

0.0004457 0.0020675 0.0028903 0.0003942 0 0 0.0003942 0.0017829 0.005907 0.0080841 59.110237 0 0 59.110237 0.0001726 0 0 0.0001726 0.0093128

1.974E‐06 4.223E ‐06 6.197E ‐0 60000 7.897E‐06 1.206E ‐05 1.996E ‐0 5000000000

4.314E‐05 0.000203 0.0002476 1.556E ‐06 0 0 1.556E ‐06 0.0001726 0.0005801 0.0007542 6.8501115 0 0 6.8501115 0.0223869 0 0 0.0223869 0.0013964 Greystar General Plan Amendment
Construction Health Risk Assessment Memorandum Attachment 1