Santa Fe Springs City Council
April 5, 2022

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

B. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment:

A. The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As indicated in Section 3.1 through

3.20, the proposed project will not result in any significant unmitigable environmental impacts.

B. The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project and the attendant environmental impacts will not lead to a cumulatively significant impact on any of the issues analyzed herein.

C. The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As indicated in Section 3.1 through 3.20, the proposed project will not result in any significant unmitigable environmental impacts.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 FINDINGS
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project is not expected to have significant adverse environmental impacts. The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this Initial Study:
● The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, with the implementation of the required mitigation.
● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
● The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of the required mitigation.

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING
In addition, pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision-maker coincidental to the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. These findings shall be incorporated as part of the decision-maker’s findings of fact, in response to AB-3180 and in compliance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code. In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081(a) and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Santa Fe Springs can make the following additional finding that a mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be required for the proposed project.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 104
SECTION 5 REFERENCES

5.1 PREPARERS
Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning
16388 Colima Road, Suite 206J
Hacienda Heights, CA 92240
(626) 336-0033
Marc Blodgett, Project Principal
Andrea Withers, Project Manager
Karla Nayakarathne, Project Planner and Geographer

5.2 REFERENCES
All references have been identified using footnotes.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 105
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ● GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
MM&RP ● MAY 25, 2021 PAGE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING

PROGRAM

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
11710 TELEGRAPH ROAD
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 90670
REPORT PREPARED BY:

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
2211 S. HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745
MAY 25,2021 SFSP 073
MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ● GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
MM&RP ● MAY 25, 2021 PAGE 2
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ● GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
MM&RP ● MAY 25, 2021 PAGE 3

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION & FINDINGS
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project is not expected to have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this Initial Study:
● The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
● The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

In addition, pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision-maker coincidental to the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which relates to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. These findings shall be incorporated as part of the decision-maker’s findings of fact, in response to AB-3180 and in compliance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code. In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081(a) and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Santa Fe Springs can make the following additional findings:
● A mitigation reporting or monitoring program will be required; and, ● An accountable enforcement agency or monitoring agency shall be identified for the mitigation measures adopted as part of the decision-maker’s final determination.

A number of mitigation measures have been recommended as a means to reduce or eliminate potential adverse environmental impacts to insignificant levels. AB-3180 requires that a monitoring and reporting program be adopted for the recommended mitigation measures.

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The Gabrielino-Kizh indicated that the project area is located within the Tribe’s ancestral territory.

However, the Tribe considers the area to be sensitive for cultural resources, and requests the following mitigation measure be implemented:

Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Cultural Resources). The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ● GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
MM&RP ● MAY 25, 2021 PAGE 4
construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

The analysis determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant impacts with respect to hazardous materials:

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Hazardous Materials). The project Applicant must retain the services of a qualified professional to oversee the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that will focus on the handling, storage, and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. The SMP will be reviewed and must be approved by the City of Santa Fe Springs and the Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SMP must be approved by the city prior to commencement of any removal of contaminated soils. The SMP mitigation will end once the project’s construction activities commence.

Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Hazardous Materials). The project Applicant will be required obtain the services of a qualified contractor to design and install proper ventilation in all enclosed spaces so as to prevent the build-up of methane and carbon monoxide. All of the units must contain methane and carbon dioxide (multi gas) monitors and alarms. All of the monitors must be maintained in good working order. The monitors must be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The City will make the determination as to the type of the vapor intrusion barrier that will be required and whether it will use passive or active venting prior to the approval of the proposed project.

The Gabrielino-Kizh indicated that the project area is located within the Tribe’s ancestral territory.

However, the Tribe considers the area to be sensitive for cultural resources, and requests the following mitigation measure be implemented:

Mitigation Measure No. 4 (Tribal Cultural Resources). The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The monitoring and reporting for the mitigation measures, including the period for implementation, monitoring agency, and the monitoring action, are identified in Table 1.

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ● GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
MM&RP ● MAY 25, 2021 PAGE 5
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Measure Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Phase Verification
Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Cultural Resources). The
project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during constructionrelated ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground
disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are
completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources
City of Santa Fe
Springs Planning
and Development
Department
●
(The Applicant is
responsible for
implementation)
During the
project’s
construction
phase.
●
Mitigation ends
when construction
is completed.

Date:

Name & Title:

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Hazardous Materials).

The project Applicant must retain the services of a qualified professional to oversee the preparation of a Soil
Management Plan (SMP) that will focus on the handling,
storage, and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. The SMP will be reviewed and must be approved by the City of Santa Fe
Springs and the Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SMP must be approved by the city prior to commencement of any removal of contaminated soils.

The SMP mitigation will end once the project’s construction activities commence.

City of Santa Fe
Springs Planning
and Development
Department
●
(The Applicant is
responsible for
implementation)
Prior to the start
of any
construction
related activities.
●
Mitigation ends at
the completion of
the construction
phase.

Date:

Name & Title:

Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Hazardous Materials).

The project Applicant will be required obtain the services of a qualified contractor to design and install proper
ventilation in all enclosed spaces so as to prevent the buildup of methane and carbon monoxide. All of the units must contain methane and carbon dioxide (multi gas) monitors and alarms. All of the monitors must be maintained in good working order. The monitors must be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The City will make the
determination as to the type of the vapor intrusion barrier that will be required and whether it will use passive or active venting prior to the approval of the proposed project.

City of Santa Fe
Springs Planning
and Development
Department
●
(The Applicant is
responsible for
implementation)
Prior to the
issuance of any
Building Permits
●
Mitigation ends at
the completion of
the construction
phase.

Date:

Name & Title:

Mitigation Measure No. 4 (Tribal Cultural
Resources) The project Applicant will be required to
obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities.

Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and
trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

City of Santa Fe
Springs Planning
and Development
Department
●
(The Applicant is
responsible for
implementation)
Prior to the
issuance of any
Grading Permits
●
Mitigation ends at
the completion of
the construction
phase.

Date:

Name & Title:

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM ● GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
MM&RP ● MAY 25, 2021 PAGE 6

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

WAREHOUSE

DEVELOPMENT
11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Prepared for

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Prepared by
CROWN CITY ENGINEERS, INC.
1475 Glen Oaks Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: 818-730-1970
Under the Supervision of:

Patrick B. Lang, P.E
April 2021
CCE2021-01 PBL
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 REPORT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 2 Level of Service Criteria ......................................................................................................... 2 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................... 5 Existing Circulation Network ................................................................................................. 5 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 9 EXISTING 2021 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 10 OPENING YEAR 2022 PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................ 14 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 19 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 19 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................ 21 Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................................ 21 2022 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC .............................................. 25 2022 Post-Project Cumulative Traffic Volumes with Project............................................... 25 PROJECT IMPACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................ 28 Site Access Analysis ............................................................................................................ 29 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ................. .. .............................................................................................................. 31 TECHNICAL APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………….……. A
APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS........................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ICU CALCULATION SHEET ............. A-2 Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021
Page ii
TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE

1. Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................. 4

2. Level of Service Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5

3. Existing (2021) Level of Service Summary ..................................................... 13

4. Cumulative Planned Project Trip Generation ........................................................................ 16

5. 2022 Pre-Project Future Conditions Level of Service Summary ...................................... 18

6. Trip Generation by Greenstone Warehouse............................................................................ 22

7. 2022 Future with Project Conditions Level of Service Summary ................................... 27

8. 2022 Future with and without Project Level of Service Summary ................................... 28

FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE

1. Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................... 6

2. Aerial View of Circulation network ...................................................................................... 7

3. Existing Lane Configuration at Key Intersections ............................................................. 11

4. Existing 2021 Peak Hour Trips at Key Intersections .......................................................... 12

5. Related Project Locations and Distribution of Peak Hour Trips ............................................ 15

6. Future 2022 Pre-Project Peak Hour Trips .......................................................................... 17

7. Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 20

8. Percentages of Project Related Trip Distribution .............................................................. 23

9. Distribution of Project Related Peak Hour Trips ................................................................... 24

10. Future 2022 Post-project Cumulative Peak Hour Trips ......................................................... 26 Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021
Page iii

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the above titled traffic study has been prepared under the supervision of Patrick B. Lang, P.E., a Professional Traffic Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Patrick B. Lang, P.E. Date Professional Engineer’s Stamp Registration #: TR 875
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021
Page iv

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the impacts on traffic circulation system relating to the proposed operation of Greenstone Warehouse in the City of Santa Fe Springs, California. The proposed project will be located on the west side of Greenstone Avenue between Lakeland Road and Sunshine Avenue. The proposed project consists of construction of a warehouse building with a total floor area of 144,411 square feet in gross floor area (including a total of 9,000 square feet ancillary office uses).

The following are the key objectives of the study:
• Documentation of existing 2021 traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site. • Determination of Project Opening Year (2022) traffic conditions and level of service (LOS) without and with the project.
• Determination of project related impacts to the circulation system, and • Identification of mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts to a level of insignificance.

The study included evaluation of the following six key signalized intersections in the general vicinity of the site:
• Bloomfield Avenue and Florence Avenue (Signalized)
• Bloomfield Avenue and Lakeland Road (Signalized)
• Bloomfield Avenue and Imperial Highway (Signalized)
• Shoemaker Avenue and Florence Avenue (Signalized)
• Shoemaker Avenue and Lakeland Road (Signalized)
• Shoemaker Avenue and Imperial Highway (Signalized)
The proposed Greenstone Warehouse project is estimated to generate approximately 333 net one-way passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips per average weekday (167 inbound and 166 outbound). The average weekday net new peak hour PCE trips will be approximately 33 PCE trips during the AM peak hour (25 inbound and 8 outbound), and 36 PCE trips during the PM peak hour (10 inbound and 26 outbound).

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021
Page v
Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project would not significantly impact any of the key intersections analyzed in the surrounding roadway system. The addition of project traffic will not increase the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios at these intersections beyond the significance thresholds of project related impacts as defined in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines. Therefore, no off-site mitigation measures would be necessary for the development of this project.

The project will provide two full-access driveways along the west side of Greenstone Avenue. Traffic volume accessing the driveways by making left turns is expected to be low and is not expected to cause any significant on-street delays or long queues. Adequate sight distance is available from the driveways along both directions on Greenstone Avenue.

A total of 205 parking space will be provided on-site for the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project in accordance with the parking code requirements of the City of Santa Fe Springs. The project’s parking supply will adequately satisfy the City’s parking requirement of 192 spaces per code.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

WAREHOUSE DEVEOPMENT
11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the impacts on traffic circulation system due to the proposed operation of Greenstone Warehouse in the City of Santa Fe Springs, California. The proposed project will be located on the west side of Greenstone Avenue between Lakeland Road and Sunshine Avenue. The proposed project consists of construction of a warehouse building with a total floor area of 144,411 square feet, including 9,000 square feet for ancillary office uses.

The following are the key objectives identified for this study:
• Documentation of existing 2021 traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site. • Determination of Project Opening Year (2022) traffic conditions and level of service (LOS) without and with the project.
• Determination of project related impacts to the circulation system, and • Identification of mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts to a level of insignificance.

The report provides data regarding existing operational characteristics of traffic in the general vicinity of the project, as well as an analysis of the proposed project’s impacts to these existing and anticipated future traffic conditions. The report identifies and quantifies the impacts at key intersections and attempts to address the most appropriate and reasonable mitigation strategies at any impacted intersections which are identified to be operating at a deficient level of service.

This report investigates existing 2021 and anticipated future 2022 opening year traffic operating conditions. The study has been prepared per City of Santa Fe Springs’s latest Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

REPORT METHODOLOGY

STUDY APPROACH
This report approaches the task of identifying and quantifying the anticipated impacts to the circulation system with a structured, “building block” methodology. The first step is to inventory and quantify existing conditions. Upon this foundation of fact, a travel forecast model, based on physical and operational characteristics of road network and manual observation of peak hour traffic movements, is structured for the entire project area and calibrated manually, by adjusting any traffic flow inconsistency, to produce reliable output, verifiable with the existing data. With the project traffic calculated and distributed onto the study area, at the anticipated opening year of the project in 2022, the travel forecast methodology is utilized to assess the project’s traffic impacts at that time. The methodology utilizes a growth factor for traffic based upon regional guidelines, any other projects in the project vicinity, as well as the traffic anticipated to be introduced from the proposed project to produce the travel forecast and level-of-service data for the future target year.

The trip generation estimate is based on the 10th edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)’s “Trip Generation” manual. Research and interviews have been conducted with local and regional agencies in order to identify and characterize the most probable trip distribution patterns within the study area.

Project impacts are identified for the future year 2022 conditions. At those intersections operating deficiently (e.g., at a level worse than LOS D) and significantly impacted by the proposed project, a mitigation measure is identified and applied, and a before-and-after mitigation analysis conducted.

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Roadway operations and the relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS). Levels of service are defined as LOS A through F. These levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists as to the amount of traffic traveling through a given intersection (the absolute capacity), the conditions that motorists experience deteriorate rapidly as traffic approaches the absolute capacity. Under such conditions, congestion as well as delay is experienced. There is generally instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near-capacity situation is labeled LOS E. Beyond LOS E, capacity is exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. An upstream queue will form and continue to expand in length until the demand volume reduces.

A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in the Highway Research Board’s Special Report 209 titled Highway Capacity Manual. The manual establishes the definitions for levels of service A through F. Brief descriptions of the six levels of service, as extracted from the manual, are listed in Table 1. The thresholds of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 2.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

LOS D is the minimum threshold at all key intersections in the urbanized areas. The traffic study guidelines require that traffic mitigation measures be identified to provide for operations at the minimum threshold levels.

For the study area intersections, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure has been utilized to determine intersection levels of service. Levels of service are presented for the entire intersection, consistent with the local and regional agency policies.

While the level of service concept and analysis methodology provides an indication of the performance of the entire intersection, the single letter grade A through F cannot describe specific operational deficiencies at intersections. Progression, queue formation, and left turn storage are examples of the operational issues that affect the performance of an intersection, but do not factor into the strict calculation of level of service. However, it provides a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio that is more meaningful when identifying a project’s impact and developing mitigation measures. Therefore, this V/C ratio information is included in describing an intersection’s operational performance under various scenarios.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 1

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LOS Description
A
No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

B
This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.

C
This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally, drivers have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

D
This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups.

E
Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection can accommodate.

Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand.

F
This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 2

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of
Service
Two-Way or All-Way Stop
Controlled Intersection
Average Delay per Vehicle
(sec)
Signalized Intersection
Average Delay per Vehicle
(sec)
Volume to Capacity
(V/C) Ratio
A 0 - 10 < or = 10 0 – 0.60
B > 10 - 15 > 10 - 20 > 0.60 – 0.70
C > 15 - 25 > 20 - 35 > 0.70 – 0.80
D > 25 - 35 > 35 - 55 > 0.80 – 0.90
E > 35 - 50 > 55 - 80 > 0.90 – 1.00
F > 50 > 80 or a V/C ratio equal to
or greater than 1.0 > 1.00

EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES

EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
In order to assess future operating conditions both with and without the proposed project, existing traffic conditions within the study area were evaluated.

Figure 1, Vicinity Map, illustrates the existing circulation network within the study area as well as the location of the proposed project.

Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the circulation network. Major north-south regional access to the site is provided by Bloomfield Avenue and Shoemaker Avenue. Major east-west regional access is provided by Florence Avenue, Lakeland Road and Imperial Highway.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP
Imperial Hwy
Greenstone Ave

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 2

AERIAL VIEW OF CIRCULAR NETWORK
Imperial Hwy
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

The project will provide two full-access driveways on Greenstone Avenue for both cars and trucks. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the existing roadways which comprise the circulation network of the study area, providing the majority of both regional and local access to the project.

BLOOMFIELD AVENUE. Bloomfield Avenue is a major north-south major arterial highway with two travel lanes in each direction. The street is approximately 84 to 90 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Directional travels are separated by either raised median or a 2-way turn lane along the center of the street. The intersections of Bloomfield Avenue at Florence Avenue, Lakeland Road and Imperial Highway are signalized. Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Bloomfield Avenue is approximately 17,610 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Bloomfield Avenue represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).

GREENSTONE AVENUE. Greenstone Avenue is a north-south local street with one travel lane in each direction. The street is approximately 64 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Directional travels are separated by a yellow line along the center of the street. Parking is permitted along the sides of the street.

SHOEMAKER AVENUE. Shoemaker Avenue is a north-south secondary arterial highway per the City’s Circulation Element of General Plan with two travel lanes in each direction.

The street is approximately 84 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour in the vicinity of the project site. Directional travels are separated by a yellow line along the center of the street. The intersections of Shoemaker Avenue at Florence Avenue, Lakeland Road and Imperial Highway are signalized. Parking is permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Shoemaker Avenue is approximately 11,460 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Shoemaker Avenue represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).

FLORENCE AVENUE. Florence Avenue is a major east-west arterial street with two travel lanes in each direction plus left turn lanes at major intersections. Directional travel is separated by raised median islands along the center. The street is approximately 80 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Florence Avenue is approximately 23,830 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Florence Avenue represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).

LAKELAND ROAD. Lakeland Road is a north-south secondary arterial highway with one travel lane in each direction. Directional travel is separated by a 2-way turn lane along the center of the street. The street is approximately 64 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Parking is partially permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Lakeland Road is approximately 7,000 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Lakeland Road represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

IMPERIAL HIGHWAY. Imperial Highway is a major east-west arterial street with three travel lanes in each direction plus turn lanes at major intersections. Directional travel is separated by raised median islands along the center. The street is approximately 84 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Imperial Highway is approximately 26,860 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Imperial Highway represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
For the purpose of evaluating existing operating conditions as well as future operating conditions with and without the proposed project, the study area was carefully selected in accordance with local traffic study guidelines. Manual turning movement counts for the selected intersections were collected in the field for the morning and evening peak periods during the month of April 2021. The intersections were counted during the peak hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) in a non-holiday week. It was determined that the following six (6) key signalized intersections would be analyzed in the study:
• Bloomfield Avenue and Florence Avenue (Signalized)
• Bloomfield Avenue and Lakeland Road (Signalized)
• Bloomfield Avenue and Imperial Highway (Signalized)
• Shoemaker Avenue and Florence Avenue (Signalized)
• Shoemaker Avenue and Lakeland Road (Signalized)
• Shoemaker Avenue and Imperial Highway (Signalized)
Existing lane configurations at the key intersections are shown in Figure 3.

Existing turning movement counts for AM and PM peak hour conditions are shown in Figure 4. Detailed turning movement counts are included in the Technical Appendix of this report.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

EXISTING 2021 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.

Year 2021 existing traffic conditions were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of level of service (LOS) analysis for signalized intersections.

Table 3 presents existing condition intersection level of service (LOS) analysis summary.

Detailed calculations relating to the study intersections are included in the Technical Appendix of this report.

Based on the results of this analysis, all 6 of the 6 study intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 3.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 3

EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AT KEY INTERSECTIONS
3 1
2 4
5 Imperial Hwy 6
De Facto Turn Lane
Greenstone R
d
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 4
EXISTING 2021 PEAK HOUR TRIPS AT KEY INTERSECTIONS
3 1
2 4
5 6
143 (166)
717 (991)
155 (162)
65 (49)
932 (828)
130 (148) 142 (155) 429 (604) 27 (51) 50 (81) 428 (587) 60 (191) 71 (35) 573 (1037)
97 (104)
41 (19)
913 (790)
53 (43) 38 (63) 255 (407) 17 (41) 112 (99) 274 (372) 33 (88) 48 (78)
129 (141)
61 (71)
42 (59)
94 (181)
30 (71) 56 (137) 595 (754) 89 (62) 40 (92) 481 (671) 33 (60) 27 (58)
65 (150)
39 (99)
49 (40)
84 (111)
13 (26) 56 (55) 340 (482) 24 (25) 76 (81) 400 (441) 10 (17) 147 (111)
620 (848)
28 (58)
58 (23)
827 (707)
171 (192) 87 (185) 416 (817) 72 (150) 35 (39) 573 (491) 166 (271)153 (147) 682 (1254)
42 (17)
120 (131)
1163 (1032)
13 (15) 125 (171) 30 (39) 149 (218) 48 (65) 24 (34) 10 (14) Imperial Hwy
Greenstone R
d
Lakeland Rd

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 3
EXISTING (2021) LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
# Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing (2021) Conditions
LOS V/C Ratio
1 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.690
Florence Ave PM C 0.790
2 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.410
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.555
3 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.600
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.676
4 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.591
Florence Ave PM B 0.660
5 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.323
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.411
6 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.590
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.606
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

OPENING YEAR 2022 PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS
A 1.0 percent per year annual traffic growth rate was applied to existing traffic volumes to create a 2020 base condition (i.e., a factor of 1.02 was applied to 2021 volumes to obtain 2022 base traffic volumes due to ambient growth). This annual traffic growth rate accounts for the population growth within the study area and traffic from any other projects to be developed in the study area.

Per City’s records, there are six (6) other related projects located within the one and onehalf mile radius of the project that will contribute to cumulative traffic volumes with the development of this project.

The locations of these related projects are shown in Figure 5.

Trip generation estimates for these related projects were developed by using nationally recognized and recommended rates contained in “Trip Generation” manual, 10th edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE also provides information on percentage of truck traffic associated with warehouse/storage land use. For warehouse uses, vehicle trips were calculated in terms of passenger car equivalents (PCE) by using vehicle mix percentages provided for warehouse uses in the City of Fontana’s “Truck Trip Generation Study”, August 2003. A truck trip is generally equivalent to 2 or 3 passenger car trips depending on the type of trucks. Accordingly, a 2.0 factor was applied to the number of 2-axle and 3-axle truck trips and a 3.0 factor was applied to the number of 4+- axle truck trips to estimate passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips generated by the trucks.

Table 4 shows a summary of trip generation estimates for the related projects. It is estimated that the related projects will generate approximately 333 PCE trips per average day (167 inbound and 166 outbound). The average weekday net new peak hour trips will be approximately 33 PCE trips during the AM peak hour (25 inbound and 8 outbound), and 36 PCE trips during the PM peak hour (10 inbound and 26 outbound).

Figure 5 also shows the related projects’ locations and trips distributed at the study intersections.

The peak hour traffic volumes from the related projects were added to existing traffic volumes with ambient growth at the study intersections to represent a 2022 pre-project traffic condition for the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 6 shows future 2022 pre-project traffic volumes at the study intersections.

This pre-project traffic condition was evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of level of service (LOS) analysis for signalized intersections. The LOS and V/C ratios for the study intersections under 2022 pre-project conditions (without project) are shown in Table 5. Detailed calculations relating to the study intersections are included in the Technical Appendix of this report.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 5

RELATED PROJECT LOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF PEAK HOUR TRIPS 3 1
2 4
5 6
8 (26)
22 (13)
1 (5) 4 (15) 14 (6) 5 (2)
5 (2)
8 (26)
22 (13) 1 (5) 1 (5) 5 (2) 5 (20) 19 (8)1 (5) 5 (2)
3 (9)
9 (4) 5 (20) 19 (8)
3 (9)
5 (2)
9 (4) 1 (5)
Imperial Hwy
Greenstone R
d
Lakeland Rd
6 7
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 4

CUMULATIVE PLANNED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land
Use Daily Daily
(ITE Code) Total Total %IN %OUT Total %IN %OUT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT Total W/Hse 287.20
(150) KSF
663 50 15 65 19 53 72
W/Hse 302.12
(150) KSF
698 52 16 68 20 56 76
W/Hse 128.896
(150) KSF
298 22 7 29 8 24 33
W/Hse 178.63
(150) KSF
413 31 9 40 12 33 45
Comm 7.82
(820) KSF
T. Home 128
(220) DU
W/Hse 213.96
(150) KSF
494 37 11 48 15 40 54
3795 210 106 316 134 248 382
Note:

Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trips:
77% 55 23% 0.19 27% 73% 500 38 11 49 15 40
Trip Generation Rate
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Average Traffic Volume
AM Peak Hour

1.74 0.17
Related Project 1:Amazon Last Mile Facility @ 11811 - 11831 Florence Ave Industrial 287,199 sf Industrial Size &
Unit
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trips:

Related Project 2: BreitbumOperating L.P. @ 12405 Telegraph Rd - 302,121 sf Industrial

1.74 0.17 77% 23% 0.19 27% 73% 526 39 12 51 15 42 57
7 14 16
Related Project 3: JSF Management, LLC @ 11212 Norwalk Blvd - 128,896 sf Industrial

1.74 0.17 77% 23% 0.19 27% 73% 224 17 5 22 6 18 24
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trips:

Related Project 4: PPF Industrial, LLC @ SE/C of Telegraph Rd. & Bloomfield Ave. - 178,627 sf Industrial

1.74 0.17 77% 23% 0.19 27% 73% 311 23 7 30 9 25 34
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trips:

Related Project 6: Storm Properties @ S/W corner of Carmenita Rd & Lakeland Rd - Multi-family 128-units

7.32 0.46 23% 77% 0.56 63% 37% 937 14 45 59 45 27 72

37.35 0.94 62% 38% 3.81 48% 52% 292 30
Related Project 5: Sonic @ 10712 Laurel Ave - 7,822 sf Commercial Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trips:

All rates are average rates. For warehouse uses, vehicle mix percentages were taken from City of Fontana's "Truck Trip Generation Study", August 2003 and truck trips were converted into passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips using PCE factors, i.e., one 2-axle or 3-axle truck trip = 2 passenger car trips, and one 4+-axle truck trip = 3 passenger car trips.
[Ref: Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) "Trip Generation", 10th Edition, 2017] Related Project 7: WDI Site @ 9951 Greenleaf Ave - 213,956 sf Industrial

1.74 0.17 77% 23% 0.19 27% 73% 372 28 8 36 11 30 41
Total Trips in PCE
4 3
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 6
FUTURE 2020 PRE-PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRIPS
3 1
2 4
5 6
144 (168)
732(1027)
157 (164)
66 (49)
963 (849)
132 (154) 143 (157) 437 (625) 27 (52) 51 (82) 446 (599) 66 (195) 77 (37) 587 (1073)
98 (105)
41 (19)
944 (811)
54 (43) 39 (69) 259 (416) 17 (41) 113 (100) 282 (378) 33 (89) 48 (79)
130 (142)
62 (72)
42 (60)
95 (183)
30 (72) 57 (138) 606 (782) 90 (63) 40 (93) 505 (686) 33 (61) 27 (59)
66 (152)
39 (100)
49 (40)
85 (112)
13 (26) 57 (56) 344 (492) 24 (25) 77 (82) 409 (447) 10 (17) 148 (112)
629 (865)
28 (59)
59 (23)
844 (718)
173 (194) 88 (187) 425 (845) 73 (152) 35 (39) 598 (504) 168 (274)155 (148) 692 (1276)
42 (17)
126 (134)
1184 (1046)
13 (15) 126 (173) 30 (39) 151 (225) 48 (66) 24 (34) 10 (14) Imperial Hwy
Greenstone R
d
Lakeland Rd
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 5
2022 PRE-PROJECT FUTURE CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY # Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
2022 Pre-Project Future
Conditions
LOS V/C Ratio
1 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.704
Florence Ave PM D 0.813
2 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.415
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.566
3 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.613
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.690
4 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.607
Florence Ave PM B 0.677
5 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.326
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.416
6 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.598
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.612
As the results indicate, all of the 6 study intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

PROPOSED PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the impacts on traffic circulation system due to the proposed operation of Greenstone Warehouse in the City of Santa Fe Springs, California. The proposed project will be located on the west side of Greenstone Avenue between Lakeland Road and Sunshine Avenue. The proposed project consists of construction of a warehouse building with a total floor area of 144,411 square feet in gross floor area (including a total of 9,000 square feet ancillary office uses).

Adequate parking spaces will be provided on-site for the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project in accordance with the parking code requirements of the City of Santa Fe Springs.

Surface parking will consist of a total of 205 marked parking spaces.

Figure 7 shows the proposed site plan for the project.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 7

PROJECT SITE PLAN
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
In order to accurately assess future traffic conditions with the proposed project, trip generation estimates were developed for the project. Trip generation rates for the project are based on the nationally recognized recommendations contained in “Trip Generation” manual, 10th edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE also provides information on percentage of truck traffic associated with warehouse/storage land use. The vehicle-mix percentages provided for heavy warehouse use in the City of Fontana’s “Truck Trip Generation Study”, August 2003, were used to determine the number of various types of truck trips to be generated. A truck trip is generally equivalent to 2 or 3 passenger car trips depending on the type of trucks. Accordingly, a 2.0 factor was applied to the number of 2-axle and 3-axle truck trips and a 3.0 factor was applied to the number of 4+-axle truck trips to estimate passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips generated by the trucks.

Table 6 shows a summary of trip generation estimates for the project. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 333 net one-way PCE trips per average day (167 inbound and 166 outbound). The average weekday net new peak hour PCE trips will be approximately 33 trips during the AM peak hour (25 inbound and 8 outbound), and 36 trips during the PM peak hour (10 inbound and 26 outbound).

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Arrival and departure distribution patterns for project-generated traffic were estimated based upon a review of circulation patterns within the study area network and regional traffic generation and attraction characteristics.

Figure 8 depicts the regional trip distribution percentages to and from the site.

Figure 9 depicts project traffic volumes at key circulation locations during the AM and PM peak hours.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 6

TRIP GENERATION BY GREENSTONE WAREHOUSE
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 8

PERCENTAGES OF PROJECT RELATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 9

DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT RELATED PEAK HOUR TRIPS
3 1
2 4
5 6
4 (2) 3 (1) 1 (4) 1 (3)3 (1) 3 (1)
2 (7) 1 (3) 1 (3)
2 (7) 7 (3) 6 (3)
2 (6) 6 (2)
3 (2) 1 (4) 1 (3) 3 (1)
6 (2) 2 (6)
Imperial Hwy
Greenstone R
d
Lakeland Rd
N
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

2022 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC
2022 POST-PROJECT CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT The 2021 cumulative post-project traffic volumes were estimated by adding project related traffic volumes to the 2022 pre-project traffic volumes with 1.0% per year ambient growth and related project traffic. Figure 10 shows Year 2020 post-project cumulative volumes for AM and PM peak hours.

Year 2022 post-project cumulative (i.e., existing plus ambient traffic plus related project plus project traffic) conditions were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of level of service (LOS) analysis for signalized intersections. The LOS and V/C ratios for the study intersections under 2022 post-project cumulative conditions (with project) are summarized in Table 7. Detailed calculations relating to the study intersections are included in the Technical Appendix of this report.

The results indicate that, all of the 6 study intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) D or better (i.e., within the range of acceptable thresholds of LOS A through D) during the AM and PM peak hours under future cumulative traffic conditions with the project.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

FIGURE 10
FUTURE 2022 POST-PROJECT CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR TRIPS
3 1
2 4
5 6
144 (168)
732(1027)
161 (166)
66 (49)
963 (849)
132 (154) 143 (157) 440 (626) 27 (52) 52 (86) 447 (602) 66 (195) 77 (37) 587 (1073)
98 (105)
41 (19)
944 (811)
57 (44) 39 (69) 262 (417) 17 (41) 113 (100) 283 (381) 34 (92) 48 (79)
130 (142)
62 (72)
44 (67)
95 (183)
32 (79) 57 (138) 606 (782) 97 (66) 40 (93) 505 (686) 39 (64) 29 (65)
66 (152)
39 (100)
49 (40)
85 (112)
13 (26) 63 (58) 344 (492) 24 (25) 77 (82) 409 (447) 10 (17) 151 (114)
629 (865)
28 (59)
59 (23)
844 (718)
173 (194) 89 (191) 426 (848) 73 (152) 35 (39) 601 (505) 168 (274)155 (148) 692 (1276)
42 (17)
132 (136)
1184 (1046)
13 (15) 126 (173) 30 (39) 153 (231) 48 (66) 24 (34) 10 (14) Imperial Hwy
Greenstone R
d
Lakeland Rd
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

TABLE 7
2022 FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY # Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
2022 Future with Project
Conditions
LOS V/C Ratio
1 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM C 0.706
Florence Ave PM D 0.816
2 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.420
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.566
3 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.616
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.691
4 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.608
Florence Ave PM B 0.677
5 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.327
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.416
6 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.599
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.613
Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

PROJECT IMPACT AND MITIGATION MEAUSURES
As indicated in the previous section, all of the 6 study intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) D or better (i.e., within the range of acceptable thresholds of LOS A through D) during the AM and PM peak hours under future cumulative traffic conditions with the project.

The project’s off-site traffic impact would not be considered significant at any of these intersections based on volume to capacity ratio and level of service expected after the project. A project’s impact on the circulation system is determined by comparing the level of service (LOS) and V/C ratios at key intersections under the future pre-project conditions and future post-project conditions. A LOS level D or better is acceptable for urban area intersections. A level of service worse than D (i.e., LOS E or F) is considered deficient and unacceptable. A project’s traffic impact is determined to be significant if the increase in V/C ratio is 0.04 or more at LOS C, or 0.02 or more at LOS D, or 0.01 or more at LOS E and F.

The LOS, V/C ratio (or ICU) for the study intersections under 2022 cumulative conditions (with project as well as without project) are summarized in Table 8 to compare Project’s traffic impact at key intersections.

TABLE 8
2022 FUTURE WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY # Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
2022 Pre-Project
Future
Conditions
2022 Future with
Project
Conditions
Increase
in V/C by
Project

LOS V/C
Ratio LOS V/C Ratio
1 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.704 C 0.706 0.002
Florence Ave PM D 0.813 D 0.816 0.003
2 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.415 A 0.420 0.005
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.566 A 0.566 0.000
3 Bloomfield Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.613 B 0.616 0.003
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.690 B 0.691 0.001
4 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM B 0.607 B 0.608 0.001
Florence Ave PM B 0.677 B 0.677 0.000
5 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.326 A 0.327 0.001
Lakeland Rd PM A 0.416 A 0.416 0.000
6 Shoemaker Ave &
Signal
AM A 0.598 A 0.599 0.001
Imperial Hwy PM B 0.612 B 0.613 0.001
As the above results indicate, the increases in V/C ratio by project traffic would not exceed the significance thresholds of project-related impacts. Therefore, the project is not expected to significantly impact traffic conditions at any of the key intersections in the vicinity.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

Since the project’s traffic impacts would not be significant at any of the off-site intersections, no off-site mitigation measures would be necessary for the development of this project.

SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS
The project will provide two full-access driveways along the east side of Greenstone Avenue. A maximum of 19 vehicles (passenger car equivalent) will enter the site during the peak hour through the driveways on Greenstone Avenue from the north by making a rightturn movement. A maximum of 20 vehicles (passenger car equivalent) will exit the site during the peak hour through the driveways to travel north by making a left-turn movement.

This low volume of traffic is not expected to cause any significant on-street delays or long queues.

Adequate sight distance is available from the driveways along both directions on Greenstone Avenue.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Adequate parking spaces will be provided on-site for the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project in accordance with the parking code requirements of the City of Santa Fe Springs.

The City’s parking code requires 1 parking space per 500 square feet of warehouse facilities up to 20,000 square feet of floor area, 1 space per 750 square feet of warehouse facilities for 20,000 – 100,000 square feet of floor area, and 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet for the floor area beyond 100,000 square feet. For office uses, the code requires 1 parking space per 250 square feet; however, it applies only when office square feet exceed 15% of the total warehouse square feet. Therefore, the total parking requirement for the project will be 192 parking spaces [i.e., 20,000 / 500 + (100,000 - 20,000) / 750 + (144,411 - 100,000) / 1,000 = 40 + 107 + 45 = 192]. In addition, for trailer parking, the City requires 1 space (12’x53’) per 4 dock doors. Therefore, for the buildings’ 16 dock doors, 4 additional spaces (12’x53’) will be required for trailer parking.

The project’s site plan shows that surface parking will consist of a total of 205 marked parking spaces to be provided in the rear sides of the warehouse building, in addition to four (4) 12’x53’ trailer parking spaces. Therefore, the project’s parking requirement will be adequately satisfied.

Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report April 2021

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project would not significantly impact any of the key intersections analyzed in the surrounding roadway system. The addition of project traffic will not increase the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios at these intersections beyond the significance thresholds of project related impacts as defined in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines. Therefore, no off-site mitigation measures would be necessary for the development of this project.

The project will provide a full-access driveway along the east side of Greenstone Avenue.

Traffic volume accessing the driveways by making left turns is expected to be low and is not expected to cause any significant on-street delays or long queues. Adequate sight distance is available from the driveways along both direction on Greenstone Avenue.

A total of 205 parking space, including a total of four (4) 12’x53’ trailer parking spaces, will be provided on-site for the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project in accordance with the parking code requirements of the City of Santa Fe Springs. The project’s parking supply will adequately satisfy the City’s parking requirement of 192 spaces per code.

APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC COUNTS
File Name : Bloomfield_Florence
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Florence Ave
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Florence Ave
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 10 81 17 27 191 4 11 76 9 26 155 56 663
07:15 AM 9 101 30 34 227 9 12 106 13 34 178 45 798
07:30 AM 9 90 36 34 246 24 12 89 15 35 185 36 811
07:45 AM 2 132 42 25 232 16 14 143 16 38 191 44 895
Total 30 404 125 120 896 53 49 414 53 133 709 181 3167
08:00 AM 7 106 34 37 227 16 12 90 16 36 163 30 774
08:15 AM 12 93 29 23 185 7 19 100 14 33 155 28 698
08:30 AM 10 91 37 22 199 8 4 81 29 22 170 23 696
08:45 AM 10 112 26 17 221 5 25 116 22 26 151 20 751
Total 39 402 126 99 832 36 60 387 81 117 639 101 2919
04:00 PM 12 153 36 16 220 7 12 136 35 40 215 23 905
04:15 PM 11 141 43 12 201 10 21 124 29 48 239 40 919
04:30 PM 18 154 32 47 252 16 21 147 49 45 232 66 1079
04:45 PM 7 140 30 39 166 10 30 145 64 42 253 54 980
Total 48 588 141 114 839 43 84 552 177 175 939 183 3883 05:00 PM 16 169 42 37 215 12 13 153 41 43 236 24 1001
05:15 PM 10 141 51 25 195 11 17 142 37 36 270 18 953
05:30 PM 5 111 31 35 203 9 14 112 36 35 228 18 837
05:45 PM 7 103 43 15 167 12 14 132 34 48 276 18 869
Total 38 524 167 112 780 44 58 539 148 162 1010 78 3660 Grand Total 155 1918 559 445 3347 176 251 1892 459 587 3297 543 13629 Apprch % 5.9 72.9 21.2 11.2 84.3 4.4 9.6 72.7 17.6 13.3 74.5 12.3 Total % 1.1 14.1 4.1 3.3 24.6 1.3 1.8 13.9 3.4 4.3 24.2 4

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Florence
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 2
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Florence Ave
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Florence Ave
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 9 101 30 140 34 227 9 270 12 106 13 131 34 178 45 257 798 07:30 AM 9 90 36 135 34 246 24 304 12 89 15 116 35 185 36 256 811 07:45 AM 2 132 42 176 25 232 16 273 14 143 16 173 38 191 44 273 895 08:00 AM 7 106 34 147 37 227 16 280 12 90 16 118 36 163 30 229 774 Total Volume 27 429 142 598 130 932 65 1127 50 428 60 538 143 717 155 1015 3278 % App. Total 4.5 71.7 23.7 11.5 82.7 5.8 9.3 79.6 11.2 14.1 70.6 15.3 PHF .750 .813 .845 .849 .878 .947 .677 .927 .893 .748 .938 .777 .941 .938 .861 .929 .916 Bloomfield Ave
Florence Ave
Florence Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Right
142
Thru
429
Left
27 Out In Total
636 598 1234
Right
65 Thru
932
Left
130
Out Total In
804 1127 1931
Left
50 Thru
428
Right
60 Out In Total
714 538 1252
Left
143
Thru
717
Right
155
Total Out In
1124 1015 2139
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Florence
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 3
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Florence Ave
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Florence Ave
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 18 154 32 204 47 252 16 315 21 147 49 217 45 232 66 343 1079 04:45 PM 7 140 30 177 39 166 10 215 30 145 64 239 42 253 54 349 980 05:00 PM 16 169 42 227 37 215 12 264 13 153 41 207 43 236 24 303 1001 05:15 PM 10 141 51 202 25 195 11 231 17 142 37 196 36 270 18 324 953 Total Volume 51 604 155 810 148 828 49 1025 81 587 191 859 166 991 162 1319 4013 % App. Total 6.3 74.6 19.1 14.4 80.8 4.8 9.4 68.3 22.2 12.6 75.1 12.3 PHF .708 .893 .760 .892 .787 .821 .766 .813 .675 .959 .746 .899 .922 .918 .614 .945 .930 Bloomfield Ave
Florence Ave
Florence Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Right
155
Thru
604
Left
51 Out In Total
802 810 1612
Right
49 Thru
828
Left
148
Out Total In
1233 1025 2258
Left
81 Thru
587
Right
191
Out In Total
914 859 1773
Left
166
Thru
991
Right
162
Total Out In
1064 1319 2383
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Lakeland
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Lakeland Rd
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Lakeland Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 22 120 23 9 25 4 12 91 11 10 27 13 367
07:15 AM 26 135 19 8 22 7 21 103 5 16 38 26 426
07:30 AM 25 148 12 2 19 14 4 110 8 8 32 8 390
07:45 AM 21 159 13 13 36 12 7 150 8 14 40 21 494
Total 94 562 67 32 102 37 44 454 32 48 137 68 1677
08:00 AM 17 153 12 7 17 9 8 118 12 10 19 6 388
08:15 AM 16 120 16 8 31 17 6 99 9 11 30 11 374
08:30 AM 13 96 9 8 7 15 13 103 2 10 31 6 313
08:45 AM 20 110 13 7 47 28 6 110 9 7 23 10 390
Total 66 479 50 30 102 69 33 430 32 38 103 33 1465
04:00 PM 12 146 17 9 42 13 22 122 15 17 39 12 466
04:15 PM 13 124 26 16 49 9 14 159 9 5 30 10 464
04:30 PM 13 213 52 27 52 19 29 174 24 32 31 15 681
04:45 PM 23 176 48 19 30 22 29 156 10 28 42 32 615
Total 61 659 143 71 173 63 94 611 58 82 142 69 2226
05:00 PM 14 192 20 12 50 6 19 187 12 13 37 13 575
05:15 PM 12 173 17 13 49 12 15 154 14 5 31 11 506
05:30 PM 16 151 9 17 49 10 18 151 10 9 30 10 480
05:45 PM 9 134 15 7 41 10 11 137 17 13 27 3 424
Total 51 650 61 49 189 38 63 629 53 40 125 37 1985
Grand Total 272 2350 321 182 566 207 234 2124 175 208 507 207 7353 Apprch % 9.2 79.9 10.9 19.1 59.3 21.7 9.2 83.9 6.9 22.6 55 22.5 Total % 3.7 32 4.4 2.5 7.7 2.8 3.2 28.9 2.4 2.8 6.9 2.8

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Lakeland
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 2
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Lakeland Rd
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Lakeland Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 26 135 19 180 8 22 7 37 21 103 5 129 16 38 26 80 426 07:30 AM 25 148 12 185 2 19 14 35 4 110 8 122 8 32 8 48 390 07:45 AM 21 159 13 193 13 36 12 61 7 150 8 165 14 40 21 75 494 08:00 AM 17 153 12 182 7 17 9 33 8 118 12 138 10 19 6 35 388 Total Volume 89 595 56 740 30 94 42 166 40 481 33 554 48 129 61 238 1698 % App. Total 12 80.4 7.6 18.1 56.6 25.3 7.2 86.8 6 20.2 54.2 25.6 PHF .856 .936 .737 .959 .577 .653 .750 .680 .476 .802 .688 .839 .750 .806 .587 .744 .859 Bloomfield Ave
Lakeland Rd
Lakeland Rd
Bloomfield Ave
Right
56 Thru
595
Left
89 Out In Total
571 740 1311
Right
42 Thru
94 Left
30 Out Total In
251 166 417
Left
40 Thru
481
Right
33 Out In Total
686 554 1240
Left
48 Thru
129
Right
61 Total Out In
190 238 428
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Lakeland
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 3
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Lakeland Rd
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Lakeland Rd
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 13 213 52 278 27 52 19 98 29 174 24 227 32 31 15 78 681 04:45 PM 23 176 48 247 19 30 22 71 29 156 10 195 28 42 32 102 615 05:00 PM 14 192 20 226 12 50 6 68 19 187 12 218 13 37 13 63 575 05:15 PM 12 173 17 202 13 49 12 74 15 154 14 183 5 31 11 47 506 Total Volume 62 754 137 953 71 181 59 311 92 671 60 823 78 141 71 290 2377 % App. Total 6.5 79.1 14.4 22.8 58.2 19 11.2 81.5 7.3 26.9 48.6 24.5 PHF .674 .885 .659 .857 .657 .870 .670 .793 .793 .897 .625 .906 .609 .839 .555 .711 .873 Bloomfield Ave
Lakeland Rd
Lakeland Rd
Bloomfield Ave
Right
137
Thru
754
Left
62 Out In Total
808 953 1761
Right
59 Thru
181
Left
71 Out Total In
263 311 574
Left
92 Thru
671
Right
60 Out In Total
896 823 1719
Left
78 Thru
141
Right
71 Total Out In
410 290 700
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Imperial
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Imperial Hwy
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Imperial Hwy
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 13 73 27 34 218 15 12 128 28 26 128 5 707
07:15 AM 18 103 22 36 219 11 2 123 38 38 144 5 759
07:30 AM 12 102 24 54 218 14 11 137 41 43 148 11 815
07:45 AM 22 114 19 43 201 17 11 189 44 40 155 7 862
Total 65 392 92 167 856 57 36 577 151 147 575 28 3143
08:00 AM 20 97 22 38 189 16 11 124 43 26 173 5 764
08:15 AM 14 93 23 38 168 18 20 97 46 27 137 13 694
08:30 AM 16 88 21 49 157 8 5 85 51 25 143 2 650
08:45 AM 18 91 13 54 151 16 26 69 35 26 119 4 622
Total 68 369 79 179 665 58 62 375 175 104 572 24 2730
04:00 PM 31 193 32 60 173 13 4 79 46 29 233 7 900
04:15 PM 32 152 39 42 189 11 10 102 73 24 205 5 884
04:30 PM 38 228 51 50 193 5 13 117 64 33 211 14 1017
04:45 PM 32 179 55 43 161 2 0 141 63 24 216 17 933
Total 133 752 177 195 716 31 27 439 246 110 865 43 3734 05:00 PM 42 232 48 49 176 4 7 107 73 38 233 17 1026
05:15 PM 38 178 31 50 177 12 19 126 71 16 188 10 916
05:30 PM 16 191 29 47 185 6 9 105 72 16 269 13 958
05:45 PM 40 135 33 50 130 5 23 73 59 30 238 20 836
Total 136 736 141 196 668 27 58 411 275 100 928 60 3736 Grand Total 402 2249 489 737 2905 173 183 1802 847 461 2940 155 13343 Apprch % 12.8 71.6 15.6 19.3 76.1 4.5 6.5 63.6 29.9 13 82.7 4.4 Total % 3 16.9 3.7 5.5 21.8 1.3 1.4 13.5 6.3 3.5 22 1.2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Imperial
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 2
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Imperial Hwy
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Imperial Hwy
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 18 103 22 143 36 219 11 266 2 123 38 163 38 144 5 187 759 07:30 AM 12 102 24 138 54 218 14 286 11 137 41 189 43 148 11 202 815 07:45 AM 22 114 19 155 43 201 17 261 11 189 44 244 40 155 7 202 862 08:00 AM 20 97 22 139 38 189 16 243 11 124 43 178 26 173 5 204 764 Total Volume 72 416 87 575 171 827 58 1056 35 573 166 774 147 620 28 795 3200 % App. Total 12.5 72.3 15.1 16.2 78.3 5.5 4.5 74 21.4 18.5 78 3.5 PHF .818 .912 .906 .927 .792 .944 .853 .923 .795 .758 .943 .793 .855 .896 .636 .974 .928 Bloomfield Ave
Imperial Hwy
Imperial Hwy
Bloomfield Ave
Right
87 Thru
416
Left
72 Out In Total
778 575 1353
Right
58 Thru
827
Left
171
Out Total In
858 1056 1914
Left
35 Thru
573
Right
166
Out In Total
615 774 1389
Left
147
Thru
620
Right
28 Total Out In
949 795 1744
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Bloomfield_Imperial
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/6/2021
Page No : 3
Bloomfield Ave
Southbound
Imperial Hwy
Westbound
Bloomfield Ave
Northbound
Imperial Hwy
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 38 228 51 317 50 193 5 248 13 117 64 194 33 211 14 258 1017 04:45 PM 32 179 55 266 43 161 2 206 0 141 63 204 24 216 17 257 933 05:00 PM 42 232 48 322 49 176 4 229 7 107 73 187 38 233 17 288 1026 05:15 PM 38 178 31 247 50 177 12 239 19 126 71 216 16 188 10 214 916 Total Volume 150 817 185 1152 192 707 23 922 39 491 271 801 111 848 58 1017 3892 % App. Total 13 70.9 16.1 20.8 76.7 2.5 4.9 61.3 33.8 10.9 83.4 5.7 PHF .893 .880 .841 .894 .960 .916 .479 .929 .513 .871 .928 .927 .730 .910 .853 .883 .948 Bloomfield Ave
Imperial Hwy
Imperial Hwy
Bloomfield Ave
Right
185
Thru
817
Left
150
Out In Total
625 1152 1777
Right
23 Thru
707
Left
192
Out Total In
1269 922 2191
Left
39 Thru
491
Right
271
Out In Total
1067 801 1868
Left
111
Thru
848
Right
58 Total Out In
931 1017 1948
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Florence
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Florence Ave
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Florence Ave
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 62 10 14 203 10 11 56 4 14 111 37 534
07:15 AM 7 63 8 10 243 11 19 68 7 26 138 30 630
07:30 AM 6 64 9 13 264 12 32 65 6 12 150 18 651
07:45 AM 1 74 8 13 239 15 31 77 10 19 141 27 655
Total 16 263 35 50 949 48 93 266 27 71 540 112 2470
08:00 AM 3 54 13 17 167 3 30 64 10 14 144 22 541
08:15 AM 1 67 10 6 188 26 22 70 4 13 136 18 561
08:30 AM 4 57 11 5 168 3 24 60 8 13 123 23 499
08:45 AM 5 48 8 10 181 6 32 53 14 12 158 21 548
Total 13 226 42 38 704 38 108 247 36 52 561 84 2149
04:00 PM 21 96 19 13 161 3 25 81 17 9 226 28 699
04:15 PM 5 106 10 8 206 4 27 74 13 11 233 18 715
04:30 PM 12 125 22 9 205 5 13 90 27 12 252 23 795
04:45 PM 10 116 10 12 181 4 23 97 19 5 240 27 744
Total 48 443 61 42 753 16 88 342 76 37 951 96 2953
05:00 PM 13 97 18 13 181 6 33 125 26 9 257 29 807
05:15 PM 6 69 13 9 223 4 30 60 16 9 288 25 752
05:30 PM 16 112 21 10 189 7 28 58 22 13 247 25 748
05:45 PM 9 92 21 12 176 4 13 76 16 3 221 36 679
Total 44 370 73 44 769 21 104 319 80 34 1013 115 2986
Grand Total 121 1302 211 174 3175 123 393 1174 219 194 3065 407 10558 Apprch % 7.4 79.7 12.9 5 91.4 3.5 22 65.7 12.3 5.3 83.6 11.1 Total % 1.1 12.3 2 1.6 30.1 1.2 3.7 11.1 2.1 1.8 29 3.9

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Florence
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 2
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Florence Ave
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Florence Ave
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 7 63 8 78 10 243 11 264 19 68 7 94 26 138 30 194 630 07:30 AM 6 64 9 79 13 264 12 289 32 65 6 103 12 150 18 180 651 07:45 AM 1 74 8 83 13 239 15 267 31 77 10 118 19 141 27 187 655 08:00 AM 3 54 13 70 17 167 3 187 30 64 10 104 14 144 22 180 541 Total Volume 17 255 38 310 53 913 41 1007 112 274 33 419 71 573 97 741 2477 % App. Total 5.5 82.3 12.3 5.3 90.7 4.1 26.7 65.4 7.9 9.6 77.3 13.1 PHF .607 .861 .731 .934 .779 .865 .683 .871 .875 .890 .825 .888 .683 .955 .808 .955 .945 Shoemaker Ave
Florence Ave
Florence Ave
Shoemaker Ave
Right
38 Thru
255
Left
17 Out In Total
386 310 696
Right
41 Thru
913
Left
53 Out Total In
623 1007 1630
Left
112
Thru
274
Right
33 Out In Total
405 419 824
Left
71 Thru
573
Right
97 Total Out In
1063 741 1804
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Florence
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 3
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Florence Ave
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Florence Ave
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 12 125 22 159 9 205 5 219 13 90 27 130 12 252 23 287 795 04:45 PM 10 116 10 136 12 181 4 197 23 97 19 139 5 240 27 272 744 05:00 PM 13 97 18 128 13 181 6 200 33 125 26 184 9 257 29 295 807 05:15 PM 6 69 13 88 9 223 4 236 30 60 16 106 9 288 25 322 752 Total Volume 41 407 63 511 43 790 19 852 99 372 88 559 35 1037 104 1176 3098 % App. Total 8 79.6 12.3 5 92.7 2.2 17.7 66.5 15.7 3 88.2 8.8 PHF .788 .814 .716 .803 .827 .886 .792 .903 .750 .744 .815 .760 .729 .900 .897 .913 .960 Shoemaker Ave
Florence Ave
Florence Ave
Shoemaker Ave
Right
63 Thru
407
Left
41 Out In Total
426 511 937
Right
19 Thru
790
Left
43 Out Total In
1166 852 2018
Left
99 Thru
372
Right
88 Out In Total
554 559 1113
Left
35 1037
Thru Right
104
Total Out In
952 1176 2128
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Lakeland
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Lakeland Road
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Lakeland Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 5 82 14 2 13 8 9 59 4 8 13 10 227
07:15 AM 5 83 16 5 19 12 22 84 4 10 10 7 277
07:30 AM 5 67 14 1 25 11 21 97 2 5 17 9 274
07:45 AM 6 110 16 4 19 16 20 119 2 5 11 13 341
Total 21 342 60 12 76 47 72 359 12 28 51 39 1119
08:00 AM 8 80 10 3 21 10 13 100 2 7 27 10 291
08:15 AM 6 83 8 4 15 6 21 85 1 8 13 11 261
08:30 AM 2 55 11 4 21 5 11 78 2 7 14 18 228
08:45 AM 6 63 12 1 13 6 18 89 2 10 13 8 241
Total 22 281 41 12 70 27 63 352 7 32 67 47 1021
04:00 PM 6 117 10 13 27 11 18 94 9 12 39 29 385
04:15 PM 7 104 14 4 25 13 21 94 4 11 33 15 345
04:30 PM 5 119 8 7 40 5 23 113 3 18 45 28 414
04:45 PM 7 138 16 7 15 6 17 114 5 13 41 22 401
Total 25 478 48 31 107 35 79 415 21 54 158 94 1545
05:00 PM 6 121 17 8 31 16 20 120 5 16 31 34 425
05:15 PM 3 98 13 18 21 8 16 80 4 11 19 16 307
05:30 PM 5 105 21 4 17 11 9 80 5 8 22 16 303
05:45 PM 8 109 14 4 7 6 8 91 4 7 28 14 300
Total 22 433 65 34 76 41 53 371 18 42 100 80 1335
Grand Total 90 1534 214 89 329 150 267 1497 58 156 376 260 5020 Apprch % 4.9 83.5 11.6 15.7 57.9 26.4 14.7 82.2 3.2 19.7 47.5 32.8 Total % 1.8 30.6 4.3 1.8 6.6 3 5.3 29.8 1.2 3.1 7.5 5.2

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Lakeland
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 2
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Lakeland Road
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Lakeland Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 5 83 16 104 5 19 12 36 22 84 4 110 10 10 7 27 277 07:30 AM 5 67 14 86 1 25 11 37 21 97 2 120 5 17 9 31 274 07:45 AM 6 110 16 132 4 19 16 39 20 119 2 141 5 11 13 29 341 08:00 AM 8 80 10 98 3 21 10 34 13 100 2 115 7 27 10 44 291 Total Volume 24 340 56 420 13 84 49 146 76 400 10 486 27 65 39 131 1183 % App. Total 5.7 81 13.3 8.9 57.5 33.6 15.6 82.3 2.1 20.6 49.6 29.8 PHF .750 .773 .875 .795 .650 .840 .766 .936 .864 .840 .625 .862 .675 .602 .750 .744 .867 Shoemaker Ave
Lakeland Road
Lakeland Road
Shoemaker Ave
Right
56 Thru
340
Left
24 Out In Total
476 420 896
Right
49 Thru
84 Left
13 Out Total In
99 146 245
Left
76 Thru
400
Right
10 Out In Total
392 486 878
Left
27 Thru
65 Right
39 Total Out In
216 131 347
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Lakeland
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 3
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Lakeland Road
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Lakeland Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 7 104 14 125 4 25 13 42 21 94 4 119 11 33 15 59 345 04:30 PM 5 119 8 132 7 40 5 52 23 113 3 139 18 45 28 91 414 04:45 PM 7 138 16 161 7 15 6 28 17 114 5 136 13 41 22 76 401 05:00 PM 6 121 17 144 8 31 16 55 20 120 5 145 16 31 34 81 425 Total Volume 25 482 55 562 26 111 40 177 81 441 17 539 58 150 99 307 1585 % App. Total 4.4 85.8 9.8 14.7 62.7 22.6 15 81.8 3.2 18.9 48.9 32.2 PHF .893 .873 .809 .873 .813 .694 .625 .805 .880 .919 .850 .929 .806 .833 .728 .843 .932 Shoemaker Ave
Lakeland Road
Lakeland Road
Shoemaker Ave
Right
55 Thru
482
Left
25 Out In Total
539 562 1101
Right
40 Thru
111
Left
26 Out Total In
192 177 369
Left
81 Thru
441
Right
17 Out In Total
607 539 1146
Left
58 Thru
150
Right
99 Total Out In
247 307 554
Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Imperial
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Vehicles
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Imperial Hwy
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Imperial Hwy
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 34 5 41 0 273 23 18 3 0 27 152 27 603
07:15 AM 40 10 26 1 257 23 6 6 2 39 134 15 559
07:30 AM 34 7 28 3 309 26 18 3 3 45 158 7 641
07:45 AM 41 10 40 4 296 29 9 7 1 42 154 11 644
Total 149 32 135 8 1135 101 51 19 6 153 598 60 2447
08:00 AM 38 9 37 2 292 30 15 10 1 40 208 14 696
08:15 AM 36 4 20 4 266 35 6 4 5 26 162 10 578
08:30 AM 28 6 28 1 274 28 4 6 0 27 197 11 610
08:45 AM 24 8 35 1 220 14 8 10 2 20 145 6 493
Total 126 27 120 8 1052 107 33 30 8 113 712 41 2377
04:00 PM 44 10 36 4 238 26 35 9 4 41 295 2 744
04:15 PM 37 5 39 7 213 30 15 13 1 40 284 8 692
04:30 PM 61 8 43 6 241 30 18 11 4 45 295 4 766
04:45 PM 57 8 36 3 249 27 22 5 0 43 294 7 751
Total 199 31 154 20 941 113 90 38 9 169 1168 21 2953
05:00 PM 41 15 49 4 262 45 16 7 8 30 331 5 813
05:15 PM 59 8 43 2 280 29 9 11 2 29 334 1 807
05:30 PM 25 5 28 4 266 45 17 8 2 35 276 10 721
05:45 PM 32 3 34 3 212 27 11 9 5 29 293 9 667
Total 157 31 154 13 1020 146 53 35 17 123 1234 25 3008
Grand Total 631 121 563 49 4148 467 227 122 40 558 3712 147 10785 Apprch % 48 9.2 42.8 1.1 88.9 10 58.4 31.4 10.3 12.6 84 3.3 Total % 5.9 1.1 5.2 0.5 38.5 4.3 2.1 1.1 0.4 5.2 34.4 1.4

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Imperial
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 2
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Imperial Hwy
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Imperial Hwy
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 34 7 28 69 3 309 26 338 18 3 3 24 45 158 7 210 641 07:45 AM 41 10 40 91 4 296 29 329 9 7 1 17 42 154 11 207 644 08:00 AM 38 9 37 84 2 292 30 324 15 10 1 26 40 208 14 262 696 08:15 AM 36 4 20 60 4 266 35 305 6 4 5 15 26 162 10 198 578 Total Volume 149 30 125 304 13 1163 120 1296 48 24 10 82 153 682 42 877 2559 % App. Total 49 9.9 41.1 1 89.7 9.3 58.5 29.3 12.2 17.4 77.8 4.8 PHF .909 .750 .781 .835 .813 .941 .857 .959 .667 .600 .500 .788 .850 .820 .750 .837 .919 Shoemaker Ave
Imperial Hwy
Imperial Hwy
Shoemaker Ave
Right
125
Thru
30 Left
149
Out In Total
297 304 601
Right
120
Thru
1163
Left
13 Out Total In
841 1296 2137
Left
48 Thru
24 Right
10 Out In Total
85 82 167
Left
153
Thru
682
Right
42 Total Out In
1336 877 2213
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM
File Name : Shoemaker_Imperial
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 4/1/2021
Page No : 3
Shoemaker Ave
Southbound
Imperial Hwy
Westbound
Shoemaker Ave
Northbound
Imperial Hwy
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 61 8 43 112 6 241 30 277 18 11 4 33 45 295 4 344 766 04:45 PM 57 8 36 101 3 249 27 279 22 5 0 27 43 294 7 344 751 05:00 PM 41 15 49 105 4 262 45 311 16 7 8 31 30 331 5 366 813 05:15 PM 59 8 43 110 2 280 29 311 9 11 2 22 29 334 1 364 807 Total Volume 218 39 171 428 15 1032 131 1178 65 34 14 113 147 1254 17 1418 3137 % App. Total 50.9 9.1 40 1.3 87.6 11.1 57.5 30.1 12.4 10.4 88.4 1.2 PHF .893 .650 .872 .955 .625 .921 .728 .947 .739 .773 .438 .856 .817 .939 .607 .969 .965 Shoemaker Ave
Imperial Hwy
Imperial Hwy
Shoemaker Ave
Right
171
Thru
39 Left
218
Out In Total
312 428 740
Right
131
Thru
1032
Left
15 Out Total In
1486 1178 2664
Left
65 Thru
34 Right
14 Out In Total
71 113 184
Left
147 1254
Thru Right
17 Total Out In
1268 1418 2686
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Vehicles
Peak Hour Data
North

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTERS.COM

APPENDIX B

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ICU CALCULATION SHEET

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 10 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 5: Staff Presentation to the Planning Commission – July 12, 2021 Development Plan Approval Case No. 980
• 11401 Greenstone Avenue
• Land Use Designation: Industrial
• Zoning: M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing)
• Applicant: Greenstone SFS, LLC
Lakeland Rd.

Greenstone Ave.

Background
• September 2004 –
• Planning Commission approved Zone Variance Case No. 66 • To allow an open storage yard on property greater than 1-acre. • For the past 17 years, the property has been leased to JB Hunt Transport, Inc. for the open storage of empty truck trailers.

Background
• The subject property is located with the City’s Methane Zone • Within 500 feet of an oil well
• Within 1,000 feet of a former landfill
Kalico No. 1
Existing Conditions – 7/8/2021
Existing Conditions – 7/8/2021
Request
• To allow the construction of a new ±144,434 sq. ft.
concrete tilt-up industrial building and related
improvements.

Site Plan
144,434 sq.ft.
18 Loading Doors
16 Dock High Doors
2 Grade Level Doors
14’ Screen Wall
10’ Sliding Gate w/ Screen
Parking (Multi-Tenant):

Required – 205 stalls
Provided – 205 stalls
Landscaping:

Required – 12,145 sq.ft.

Provided – 17,425 sq.ft.

Driveways and Circulation
40’
40’
26’ Fire Lane
Floor Plan
FIRST FLOOR:

WAREHOUSE – 134,995 SQ. FT.

OFFICE – 2,481 SQ. FT.

MEZZANINE:

STORAGE – 4,018 SQ. FT.

OFFICE – 2,940 SQ. FT.

Elevations
East
West
Elevations
North
South
Rendering
Environmental Review (CEQA)
• One environmental document was prepared for the project (DPA 980). • IS/MND prepared by Blodgett / Baylosis Environmental Planning. • Total of 4 proposed mitigation measures.
• Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared. • Emailed to Commissioners on 6/7/2021.
• Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Crown City Engineers, Inc.

Environmental Review (CEQA)
• IS/MND - circulated for required 20-day public review and comment period. • June 1, 2021 through June 21, 2021.
• No comments/inquiries received to date.

Environmental Review (CEQA) – Traffic
• Traffic Impact Study prepared by Crown City Engineers, Inc. • Studied 6 key signalized intersections in the general vicinity. • The average weekday net new peak hour passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips will be approximately 33 PCE trips during the AM peak hour (25 inbound and 8 outbound), and 36 PCE trips during the PM peak hour (10 inbound and 26 outbound).
• Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project would not significantly impact any of the key intersections analyzed in the surrounding roadway system.
• Per City’s records, there are six (6) other related projects located within the one and one half mile radius of the project that will contribute to cumulative traffic volumes with the development of this project.

Public Hearing Notice
Also posted in:

City Hall, TCH, & Library
Mailed:

June 30, 2021
Public Hearing Notice
Published in
local newspaper:

July 1, 2021
Public Hearing Notice – Comment Received
• This morning (7/12/21), Staff received an email from Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) regarding the proposed development. • Our environmental consultant has provided a response to their statements.

Considerations
• Meets the criteria set forth in Section §155.739 of the Zoning Regulations for the granting of a Development Plan Approval. • The project involves the construction of a new attractive industrial building on a site that is currently underutilized and developed with a modular office building for a truck trailer storage facility. • The design of the new concrete tilt-up industrial building provides quality architectural design, as demonstrated by glazing, pop-outs, and variations in height, materials, and color.

Staff Recommendations
• Approve and adopt the proposed environmental documents • IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); and
• Mitigation Monitoring and reporting Program (MMRP).
• Approve DPA 980
• Subject to the conditions as stated within the attached Resolutions. • Adopt Resolution No. 190-2021, which incorporates the Planning Commission’s findings and actions regarding this matter.

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 11 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 6: Letter from SAFER – July 12, 2022

VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
July 12, 2021
Ken Arnold, Chairperson
And Honorable Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Wayne M. Morrell, Director
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]

Re: CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)
Dear Chairperson Arnold, Planning Commissioners, Mr. Velasco, Mr. Morrell, and Ms.

Martinez,
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the proposed development of a 137,000 square foot concrete tiltup industrial building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue in Santa Fe Springs (DPA 980), proposed by applicant CEG Construction (“Project”). The City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) has prepared a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for the Project. We request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts.

A. Failure to Provide Notice
On April 1, 2021, we send a written notice request letter requesting notice of any document released pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including any MND, EIR or CEQA exemption. (Exhibit A). The April 2 request was filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government July 12, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City released an MND for the Project on May 21, 2021, but it appears from our records that the City failed to provide us with notice of the MND. As a result, we were denied our right to have at least 20-days to review and comments on the MND. We therefore request that the City continue the Planning Commission hearing for at least 20-days to allow us the right to review and comment on the MND. We reserve the right to file a petition for writ of mandate against the City seeking a writ of mandate to require the City to comply with CEQA’s notice requirements.

B. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Adverse Environmental Impacts.

1. Legal Standard.

As the Supreme Court held, “If no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320 (“CBE v.

SCAQMD”), citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491, 504–505) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.

The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 927.

An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (CEQA July 12, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego, 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440 (1989). CEQA contains a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927 (emphasis in original).

2. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

There is a fair argument that the Project will have adverse air quality impacts.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) has adopted CEQA screening thresholds. (Exhibit B). Although this Project is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), the thresholds of the two agencies and similar and SCAQMD has not adopted similar screening thresholds. Therefore, the exceedance of the BAAQMD thresholds establishes a “fair argument” that the Project will also exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The BAAQMD thresholds provide that an industrial building of over 121,000 square feet may have significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. The Project is137,000 square feet, and therefore exceeds this screening threshold. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant GHG impacts that should be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR. Feasible mitigation measures may include installation of solar panels, energy efficiency measures that exceed Title 24 requirements, requirements for electrified forklifts, trucks and other equipment, and many other measures, including measures suggested by the California Attorney General. (Exhibit C).

3. The MND’s Analysis of Energy Impacts is Conclusory and Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project’s Energy Impacts will be less than Significant.

The MND devoted less than two pages to its energy analysis. (MND, pp. 44-45.) The MND relies on the Project’s compliance with Title 24 regulations to conclude that the impact is less than significant. However, compliance with existing standards does not provide substantial evidence that the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.

The standard under CEQA is whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake “an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” violates CEQA. (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213.) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use July 12, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.)
Simply requiring compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (Title 24) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-65 (Ukiah Citizens).) Similarly, the court in City of Woodland held unlawful an energy analysis that relied on compliance with Title 24, that failed to assess transportation energy impacts, and that failed to address renewable energy impacts. (City of Woodland, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 209-13.) As such, the MND’s reliance on Title 24 compliance does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the Project’s energy impacts.

The MND summarily concludes that the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. There is no discussion of the Project's cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements. There is no discussion of energy consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the Project, including the energy necessary to power construction equipment, forklifts, heating, cooling, truck refrigeration units, etc. The Project's energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, and maintenance were not identified. The effect of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity has not been addressed. As such, the MND’s conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy impacts under CEQA.

C. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City continue the Planning Commission hearing for at least 20-days to provide the legally required public comment period. We also request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

VIA EMAIL
April 1, 2021
Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Wayne M. Morrell, Director
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Re: CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)
Dear Mr. Velasco, Mr. Morrell, and Ms. Martinez,
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the proposed development of a 137,000 square foot concrete tilt-up industrial building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue in Santa Fe Springs (DPA 980), proposed by applicant CEG Construction (“Project”).

We hereby request that the City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) send by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following:
 Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091.  Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including, but not limited to:
 Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA.
 Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is required for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4.  Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9.  Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.

April 1, 2021
CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

 Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
 Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out the Project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.  Notices of any addenda prepared to a previously certified or approved EIR.  Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law.  Notices of determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law.  Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.
 Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152.

Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which require local counties to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

Please send notice by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to:

Richard Drury
Komalpreet Toor
Stacey Oborne
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Stacey Oborne
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT B
Screening Criteria
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-1
CEQA Guidelines June 2010

3. SCREENING CRITERIA
The screening criteria identified in this section are not thresholds of significance. The Air District developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. These screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration. In addition, the screening criteria in this section do not account for project design features, attributes, or local development requirements that could also result in lower emissions. For projects that are mixeduse, infill, and/or proximate to transit service and local services, emissions would be less than the greenfield type project that these screening criteria are based on.

If a project includes emissions from stationary source engines (e.g., back-up generators) and industrial sources subject to Air District Rules and Regulations, the screening criteria should not be used. The project’s stationary source emissions should be analyzed separately from the land use-related indirect mobile- and area-source emissions. Stationary-source emissions are not included in the screening estimates given below and, for criteria pollutants, must be added to the indirect mobile- and area-source emissions generated by the land use development and compared to the appropriate Thresholds of Significance. Greenhouse gas emissions from permitted stationary sources should not be combined with operational emissions, but compared to a separate stationary source greenhouse gas threshold.

3.1. OPERATIONAL-RELATED IMPACTS

3.1.1. Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
The screening criteria developed for criteria pollutants and precursors were derived using the default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model (URBEMIS). If the project has sources of emissions not evaluated in the URBEMIS program the screening criteria should not be used. If the project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, the project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-2. Operation of the proposed project would therefore result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions.

3.1.2. Greenhouse Gases
The screening criteria developed for greenhouse gases were derived using the default emission assumptions in URBEMIS and using off-model GHG estimates for indirect emissions from electrical generation, solid waste and water conveyance. If the project has other significant sources of GHG emissions not accounted for in the methodology described above, then the screening criteria should not be used. Projects below the applicable screening criteria shown in Table 3-1 would not exceed the 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr GHG threshold of significance for projects other than permitted stationary sources.

If a project, including stationary sources, is located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the project may be considered less than significant if it is consistent with the GHG Reduction Strategy. A project must demonstrate its consistency by identifying and implementing all applicable feasible measures and policies from the GHG Reduction Strategy into the project.

Screening Criteria
Page | 3-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
Table 3-1
Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes Land Use Type Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size
Operational GHG
Screening Size
Construction-Related
Screening Size
Single-family 325 du (NOX) 56 du 114 du (ROG)
Apartment, low-rise 451 du (ROG) 78 du 240 du (ROG)
Apartment, mid-rise 494 du (ROG) 87 du 240 du (ROG)
Apartment, high-rise 510 du (ROG) 91 du 249 du (ROG)
Condo/townhouse, general 451 du (ROG) 78 du 240 du (ROG) Condo/townhouse, high-rise 511 du (ROG) 92 du 252 du (ROG) Mobile home park 450 du (ROG) 82 du 114 du (ROG)
Retirement community 487 du (ROG) 94 du 114 du (ROG)
Congregate care facility 657 du (ROG) 143 du 240 du (ROG) Day-care center 53 ksf (NOX) 11 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Elementary school 271 ksf (NOX) 44 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Elementary school 2747 students (ROG) - 3904 students (ROG) Junior high school 285 ksf (NOX) - 277 ksf (ROG)
Junior high school 2460 students (NOX) 46 ksf 3261 students (ROG) High school 311 ksf (NOX) 49 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
High school 2390 students (NOX) - 3012 students (ROG)
Junior college (2 years) 152 ksf (NOX) 28 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Junior college (2 years) 2865 students (ROG) - 3012 students (ROG) University/college (4 years) 1760 students (NOX) 320 students 3012 students (ROG) Library 78 ksf (NOX) 15 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Place of worship 439 ksf (NOX) 61 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
City park 2613 acres (ROG) 600 acres 67 acres (PM10)
Racquet club 291 ksf (NOX) 46 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Racquetball/health 128 ksf (NOX) 24 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Quality restaurant 47 ksf (NOX) 9 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
High turnover restaurant 33 ksf (NOX) 7 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Fast food rest. w/ drive thru 6 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Fast food rest. w/o drive thru 8 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Hotel 489 rooms (NOX) 83 rooms 554 rooms (ROG)
Motel 688 rooms (NOX) 106 rooms 554 rooms (ROG)
Free-standing discount store 76 ksf (NOX) 15 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Free-standing discount superstore 87 ksf (NOX) 17 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Discount club 102 ksf (NOX) 20 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Regional shopping center 99 ksf (NOX) 19 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Electronic Superstore 95 ksf (NOX) 18 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Home improvement superstore 142 ksf (NOX) 26 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Strip mall 99 ksf (NOX) 19 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Hardware/paint store 83 ksf (NOX) 16 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Supermarket 42 ksf (NOX) 8 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Convenience market (24 hour) 5 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Convenience market with gas pumps 4 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Bank (with drive-through) 17 ksf (NOX) 3 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) General office building 346 ksf (NOX) 53 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Screening Criteria
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-3
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
Table 3-1
Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes Land Use Type Operational Criteria
Pollutant Screening Size
Operational GHG
Screening Size
Construction-Related
Screening Size
Office park 323 ksf (NOX) 50 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Government office building 61 ksf (NOX) 12 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Government (civic center) 149 ksf (NOX) 27 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Pharmacy/drugstore w/ drive through 49 ksf (NOX) 10 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Pharmacy/drugstore w/o drive through 48 ksf (NOX) 10 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Medical office building 117 ksf (NOX) 22 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Hospital 226 ksf (NOX) 39 ksf 277 ksf (ROG)
Hospital 334 beds (NOX) 84 ksf 337 beds (ROG)
Warehouse 864 ksf (NOX) 64 ksf 259 ksf (NOX)
General light industry 541 ksf (NOX) 121 ksf 259 ksf (NOX) General light industry 72 acres (NOX) - 11 acres (NOX)
General light industry 1249 employees (NOX) - 540 employees (NOX) General heavy industry 1899 ksf (ROG) - 259 ksf (NOX)
General heavy industry 281 acres (ROG) - 11 acres (NOX) Industrial park 553 ksf (NOX) 65 ksf 259 ksf (NOX)
Industrial park 61 acres (NOX) - 11 acres (NOX)
Industrial park 1154 employees (NOX) - 577 employees (NOX) Manufacturing 992 ksf (NOX) 89 ksf 259 ksf (NOX)
Notes: du = dwelling units; ksf = thousand square feet; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases.

Screening levels include indirect and area source emissions. Emissions from engines (e.g., back-up generators) and industrial sources subject to Air District Rules and Regulations embedded in the land uses are not included in the screening estimates and must be added to the above land uses.

Refer to Appendix D for support documentation.

Source: Modeled by EDAW 2009.

3.2. COMMUNITY RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS
Please refer to Chapter 5 for discussion of screening criteria for local community risk and hazard impacts.

3.3. CARBON MONOXIDE IMPACTS
This preliminary screening methodology provides the Lead Agency with a conservative indication of whether the implementation of the proposed project would result in CO emissions that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-3.

The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria is met:

1. Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

Screening Criteria
Page | 3-4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010

2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

3.4. ODOR IMPACTS
Table 3-3 presents odor screening distances recommended by BAAQMD for a variety of land uses. Projects that would site a new odor source or a new receptor farther than the applicable screening distance shown in Table 3-3 from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a significant odor impact. The odor screening distances in Table 3-3 should not be used as absolute screening criteria, rather as information to consider along with the odor parameters and complaint history. Refer to Chapter 7 Assessing and Mitigating Odor Impacts for comprehensive guidance on significance determination.

Table 3-3
Odor Screening Distances
Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Metal Smelting Plants 2 miles
Refer to Appendix D for support documentation.

Facilities that are regulated by CalRecycle (e.g. landfill, composting, etc.) are required to have Odor Impact Minimization Plans (OIMP) in place and have procedures that establish fence line odor detection thresholds. The Air District recognizes a Lead Agency’s discretion under CEQA to use established odor detection thresholds as thresholds of significance for CEQA review for CalRecycle regulated facilities with an adopted OIMP.

Screening Criteria
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-5
CEQA Guidelines June 2010

3.5. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS

3.5.1. Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
This preliminary screening provides the Lead Agency with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project would result in the generation of construction-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-4.

If all of the following Screening Criteria are met, the construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions.

1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1; and

2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction; and

3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following:
a. Demolition;
b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously);
c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development);
d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

3.5.2. Community Risk and Hazards
Chapter 5, Assessing and Mitigating Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts, contains information on screening criteria for local risk and hazards.

Screening Criteria
Page | 3-6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines June 2010
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

EXHIBIT C
Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level
California Attorney General’s Office
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies have a very important role to play in California’s fight against global warming – one of the most serious environmental effects facing the State today. Local agencies can lead by example in undertaking their own projects, insuring that sustainability is considered at the earliest stages. Moreover, they can help shape private development. Where a project as proposed will have significant global warming related effects, local agencies can require feasible changes or alternatives, and impose enforceable, verifiable, feasible mitigation to substantially lessen those effects. By the sum of their actions and decisions, local agencies will help to move the State away from “business as usual” and toward a low-carbon future.

Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts at the individual project level. (For more information on actions that local governments can take at the program and general plan level, please visit the Attorney General’s webpage, “CEQA, Global Warming, and General Plans” at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa/generalplans.php.)
As appropriate, the measures can be included as design features of a project, required as changes to the project, or imposed as mitigation (whether undertaken directly by the project proponent or funded by mitigation fees). The measures set forth in this package are examples; the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Moreover, the measures cited may not be appropriate for every project. The decision of whether to approve a project – as proposed or with required changes or mitigation – is for the local agency, exercising its informed judgment in compliance with the law and balancing a variety of public objectives.

Mitigation Measures by Category
Energy Efficiency
Incorporate green
building practices and
design elements.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Green Building & Sustainability Resources handbook provides extensive links to green building resources. The handbook is available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/green_build.pdf.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has compiled fifty readily available strategies for reducing fossil fuel use in buildings by fifty percent. AIA “50 to 50” plan is presented in both guidebook and wiki format at http://wiki.aia.org/Wiki%20Pages/Home.aspx.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 1
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 2
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Meet recognized green
building and energy
efficiency benchmarks.

For example, an ENERGY STAR-qualified building uses less energy, is less expensive to operate, and causes fewer greenhouse gas emissions than comparable, conventional buildings.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_index.

California has over 1600 ENERGY STAR-qualified school, commercial and industrial buildings. View U.S. EPA’s list of Energy Star nonresidential buildings at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=labeled_buildings.loc ator. Los Angeles and San Francisco top the list of U.S. cities with the most ENERGY STAR non-residential buildings.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/2008_Top_25_cities _chart.pdf.

Qualified ENERGY STAR homes must surpass the state's Title 24 energy efficiency building code by at least 15%. Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco-Oakland are among the top 20 markets for ENERGY STAR homes nationwide.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/new_homes/mil_homes/top_20_markets. html. Builders of ENERGY STAR homes can be more competitive in a tight market by providing a higher quality, more desirable product. See http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/Horton.pdf.

There are a variety of private and non-profit green building certification programs in use in the U.S. See U.S. EPA’s Green Building / Frequently Asked Questions website, http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/faqs.htm.

Public-Private Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology maintains a list of national and state Green Building Certification Programs for housing. See http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=20978. These include the national Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, and, at the state level, Build it Green’s GreenPoint Rated system and the California Green Builder program.

Other organizations may provide other relevant benchmarks.

Install energy efficient
lighting (e.g., light
emitting diodes
(LEDs)), heating and
cooling systems,
appliances, equipment,
and control systems.

Information about ENERGY STAR-certified products in over 60 categories is available at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.

The California Energy Commission maintains a database of all appliances meeting either federal efficiency standards or, where there are no federal efficiency standards, California's appliance efficiency standards. See http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.

The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) ranks computer products based on a set of environmental criteria, including energy efficiency. See http://www.epeat.net/AboutEPEAT.aspx.

The nonprofit American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy maintains an Online Guide to Energy Efficient Commercial Equipment, available at http://www.aceee.org/ogeece/ch1_index.htm.

Utilities offer many incentives for efficient appliances, lighting, heating and cooling. To search for available residential and commercial incentives, visit Flex Your Power’s website at http://www.fypower.org/.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 3
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Use passive solar
design, e.g., orient
buildings and
incorporate landscaping
to maximize passive
solar heating during
cool seasons, minimize
solar heat gain during
hot seasons, and
enhance natural
ventilation. Design
buildings to take
advantage of sunlight.

See U.S. Department of Energy, Passive Solar Design (website) http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/designing_remodeling/index.cfm/myt opic=10250.

See also California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Passive Solar Design (website)
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/construction/solardesign/index.ht ml.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories’ Building Technologies Department is working to develop innovative building construction and design techniques.

Information and publications on energy efficient buildings, including lighting, windows, and daylighting strategies, are available at the Department’s website at http://btech.lbl.gov.

Install light colored
“cool” roofs and cool
pavements.

A white or light colored roof can reduce surface temperatures by up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, which also reduces the heat transferred into the building below. This can reduce the building’s cooling costs, save energy and reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions, and extend the life of the roof. Cool roofs can also reduce the temperature of surrounding areas, which can improve local air quality. See California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Cool Roofs (webpage) at
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/coolroof/.

See also Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Heat Island Group (webpage) at http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/.

Install efficient lighting,
(including LEDs) for
traffic, street and other
outdoor lighting.

LED lighting is substantially more energy efficient than conventional lighting and can save money. See
http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/partnership/case_studies/TechAsstCity.pdf (noting that installing LED traffic signals saved the City of Westlake about $34,000 per year).

As of 2005, only about a quarter of California’s cities and counties were using 100% LEDs in traffic signals. See California Energy Commission (CEC), Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Survey (2005) at p. 15, available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC 400 2005 003/CEC 400 2005 003.PDF.

The California Energy Commission’s Energy Partnership Program can help local governments take advantage of energy saving technology, including, but not limited to, LED traffic signals. See
http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/partnership/.

Reduce unnecessary
outdoor lighting.

See California Energy Commission, Reduction of Outdoor Lighting (webpage) at http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/lighting/outdoor_reduction.html.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 4
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Use automatic covers,
efficient pumps and
motors, and solar
heating for pools and
spas.

During the summer, a traditional backyard California pool can use enough energy to power an entire home for three months. Efficiency measures can substantially reduce this waste of energy and money. See California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Pools and Spas (webpage) at http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/outside/pools_spas.html.

See also Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Pool and Spa Efficiency Program (webpage) at http://www.smud.org/en/residential/savingenergy/Pages/poolspa.aspx.

Provide education on
energy efficiency to
residents, customers
and/or tenants.

Many cities and counties provide energy efficiency education. See, for example, the City of Stockton’s Energy Efficiency website at http://www.stocktongov.com/energysaving/index.cfm. See also “Green County San Bernardino,” http://www.greencountysb.com at pp. 4-6.

Businesses and development projects may also provide education. For example, a homeowners’ association (HOA) could provide information to residents on energy-efficient mortgages and energy saving measures. See The Villas of Calvera Hills, Easy Energy Saving Tips to Help Save Electricity at http://www.thevillashoa.org/green/energy/. An HOA might also consider providing energy audits to its residents on a regular basis.

Renewable Energy and Energy Storage
Meet “reach” goals for
building energy
efficiency and
renewable energy use.

A “zero net energy” building combines building energy efficiency and renewable energy generation so that, on an annual basis, any purchases of electricity or natural gas are offset by clean, renewable energy generation, either on-site or nearby. Both the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have stated that residential buildings should be zero net energy by 2020, and commercial buildings by 2030. See CEC, 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Dec. 2009) at p. 226, available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-100-2009-003/CEC100-2009-003-CMF.PDF; CPUC, Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Sept. 2008), available at
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Energy+Efficiency/eesp/.

Install solar, wind, and
geothermal power
systems and solar hot
water heaters.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the California Solar Initiative on January 12, 2006. The initiative creates a $3.3 billion, tenyear program to install solar panels on one million roofs in the State. Visit the one-stop GoSolar website at http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/. As mitigation, a developer could, for example, agree to participate in the New Solar Homes program. See http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/builders/index.html.

The CPUC is in the process of establishing a program to provide solar water heating incentives under the California Solar Initiative. For more information, visit the CPUC’s website at
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/energy/solar/swh.htm.

To search for available residential and commercial renewable energy incentives, visit Flex Your Power’s website at http://www.fypower.org/.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 5
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Install solar panels on
unused roof and ground
space and over
carports and parking
areas.

In 2008 Southern California Edison (SCE) launched the nation’s largest installation of photovoltaic power generation modules. The utility plans to cover 65 million square feet of unused commercial rooftops with 250 megawatts of solar technology – generating enough energy to meet the needs of approximately 162,000 homes. Learn more about SCE’s Solar Rooftop Program at http://www.sce.com/solarleadership/solar-rooftop-program/generalfaq.htm.

In 2009, Walmart announced its commitment to expand the company’s solar power program in California. The company plans to add solar panels on 10 to 20 additional Walmart facilities in the near term.

These new systems will be in addition to the 18 solar arrays currently installed at Walmart facilities in California. See
http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/9091.aspx.

Alameda County has installed two solar tracking carports, each generating 250 kilowatts. By 2005, the County had installed eight photovoltaic systems totaling over 2.3 megawatts. The County is able to meet 6 percent of its electricity needs through solar power. See
http://www.acgov.org/gsa/Alameda%20County%20-
%20Solar%20Case%20Study.pdf.

In 2007, California State University, Fresno installed at 1.1-megawatt photovoltaic (PV)-paneled parking installation. The University expects to save more than $13 million in avoided utility costs over the project’s 30-year lifespan. http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2007/11/solarwrapup2.htm.

Where solar systems
cannot feasibly be
incorporated into the
project at the outset,
build “solar ready”
structures.

U.S. Department of Energy, A Homebuilder’s Guide to Going Solar (brochure) (2008), available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/43076.pdf.

Incorporate wind and
solar energy systems
into agricultural projects
where appropriate.

Wind energy can be a valuable crop for farmers and ranchers. Wind turbines can generate energy to be used on-site, reducing electricity bills, or they can yield lease revenues (as much as $4000 per turbine per year). Wind turbines generally are compatible with rural land uses, since crops can be grown and livestock can be grazed up to the base of the turbine. See National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wind Powering America Fact Sheet Series, Wind Energy Benefits, available at
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37602.pdf.

Solar PV is not just for urban rooftops. For example, the Scott Brothers’ dairy in San Jacinto, California, has installed a 55-kilowatt solar array on its commodity barn, with plans to do more in the coming years. See http://www.dairyherd.com/directories.asp?pgID=724&ed_id=8409 (additional California examples are included in article.)
AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 6
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Include energy storage
where appropriate to
optimize renewable
energy generation
systems and avoid
peak energy use.

See National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Energy Storage Basics (webpage) at http://www.nrel.gov/learning/eds_energy_storage.html.

California Energy Storage Alliance (webpage) at
http://storagealliance.org/about.html.

Storage is not just for large, utility scale projects, but can be part of smaller industrial, commercial and residential projects. For example, Ice Storage Air Conditioning (ISAC) systems, designed for residential and nonresidential buildings, produce ice at night and use it during peak periods for cooling. See California Energy Commission, Staff Report, Ice Storage Air Conditioners, Compliance Options Application (May 2006), available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-006/CEC-400- 2006-006-SF.PDF.

Use on-site generated
biogas, including
methane, in appropriate
applications.

At the Hilarides Dairy in Lindsay, California, an anaerobic-lagoon digester processes the run-off of nearly 10,000 cows, generating 226,000 cubic feet of biogas per day and enough fuel to run two heavy duty trucks. This has reduced the dairy’s diesel consumption by 650 gallons a day, saving the dairy money and improving local air quality. See
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr021109b.htm; see also Public Interest Energy Research Program, Dairy Power Production Program, Dairy Methane Digester System, 90-Day Evaluation Report, Eden Vale Dairy (Dec. 2006) at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC 500 2006 083/CEC 500 2006 083.PDF.

Landfill gas is a current and potential source of substantial energy in California. See Tom Frankiewicz, Program Manager, U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Landfill Gas Energy Potential in California, available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009_energypolicy/documents/2009-04- 21_workshop/presentations/05-SCS_Engineers_Presentation.pdf.

There are many current and emerging technologies for converting landfill methane that would otherwise be released as a greenhouse gas into clean energy. See California Integrated Waste Management Board, Emerging Technologies, Landfill Gas-to-Energy (webpage) at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LEACentral/TechServices/EmergingTech/default.htm.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 7
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Use combined heat and
power (CHP) in
appropriate
applications.

Many commercial, industrial, and campus-type facilities (such as hospitals, universities and prisons) use fuel to produce steam and heat for their own operations and processes. Unless captured, much of this heat is wasted.

CHP captures waste heat and re-uses it, e.g., for residential or commercial space heating or to generate electricity. See U.S. EPA, Catalog of CHP Technologies at
http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_of_%20chp_tech_entire.pdf and California Energy Commission, Distributed Energy Resource Guide, Combined Heat and Power (webpage) at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/chp/chp.html.

The average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the United States is 33 percent. By using waste heat recovery technology, CHP systems typically achieve total system efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent. CHP can also substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/efficiency.html.

Currently, CHP in California has a capacity of over 9 million kilowatts. See list of California CHP facilities at http://www.eea-inc.com/chpdata/States/CA.html.

The Waste Heat and Carbon Emissions Reduction Act (Assembly Bill 1613 (2007), amended by Assembly Bill 2791 (2008)) is designed to encourage the development of new CHP systems in California with a generating capacity of not more than 20 megawatts. Among other things, the Act requires the California Public Utilities Commission to establish (1) a standard tariff allowing CHP generators to sell electricity for delivery to the grid and (2) a "pay as you save" pilot program requiring electricity corporations to finance the installation of qualifying CHP systems by nonprofit and government entities. For more information, see http://www.energy.ca.gov/wasteheat/.

Water Conservation and Efficiency
Incorporate waterreducing features into
building and landscape
design.

According to the California Energy Commission, water-related energy use – which includes conveyance, storage, treatment, distribution, wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge – consumes about 19 percent of the State’s electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC 999 2007 008/CEC 999 2007 008.PDF. Reducing water use and improving water efficiency can help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Create water-efficient
landscapes.

The California Department of Water Resources’ updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Sept. 2009) is available at
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/technical.cfm.

A landscape can be designed from the beginning to use little or no water, and to generate little or no waste. See California Integrated Waste Management Board, Xeriscaping (webpage) at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/Xeriscaping/.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 8
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Install water-efficient
irrigation systems and
devices, such as soil
moisture-based
irrigation controls and
use water-efficient
irrigation methods.

U.S. Department of Energy, Best Management Practice: Water-Efficient Irrigation (webpage) at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp5.html.

California Department of Water Resources, Landscape Water Use Efficiency (webpage) at http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscape/.

Pacific Institute, More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California (2008), available at
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/more_with_less_delta/index.htm.

Make effective use of
graywater. (Graywater
is untreated household
waste water from
bathtubs, showers,
bathroom wash basins,
and water from clothes
washing machines.

Graywater to be used
for landscape
irrigation.)
California Building Standards Commission, 2008 California Green Building Standards Code, Section 604, pp. 31-32, available at
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2009/part11_2008_calgreen_code.pdf.

California Department of Water Resources, Dual Plumbing Code (webpage) at http://www.water.ca.gov/recycling/DualPlumbingCode/.

See also Ahwahnee Water Principles, Principle 6, at
http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/h2o_principles.html. The Ahwahnee Water Principles have been adopted by City of Willits, Town of Windsor, Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Petaluma, Port Hueneme, Richmond, Rohnert Park, Rolling Hills Estates, San Luis Obispo, Santa Paula, Santa Rosa, City of Sunnyvale, City of Ukiah, Ventura, Marin County, Marin Municipal Water District, and Ventura County.

Implement low-impact
development practices
that maintain the
existing hydrology of
the site to manage
storm water and protect
the environment.

Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site. See U.S. EPA, Low Impact Development (webpage) at http://www.epa.gov/nps/lid/.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the California Water and Land Use Partnership, Low Impact Development at
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/lid-factsheet.pdf.

Devise a
comprehensive water
conservation strategy
appropriate for the
project and location.

The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.

Design buildings to be
water-efficient. Install
water-efficient fixtures
and appliances.

Department of General Services, Best Practices Manual, Water-Efficient Fixtures and Appliances (website) at
http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/building/SaveH2O.htm.

Many ENERGY STAR products have achieved their certification because of water efficiency. See California Energy Commission’s database, available at http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 9
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Offset water demand
from new projects so
that there is no net
increase in water use.

For example, the City of Lompoc has a policy requiring new development to offset new water demand with savings from existing water users. See http://www.cityoflompoc.com/utilities/pdf/2005_uwmp_final.pdf at p. 29.

Provide education
about water
conservation and
available programs and
incentives.

See, for example, the City of Santa Cruz, Water Conservation Office at http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/index.aspx?page=395; Santa Clara Valley Water District, Water Conservation at
http://www.valleywater.org/conservation/index.shtm; and Metropolitan Water District and the Family of Southern California Water Agencies, Be Water Wise at http://www.bewaterwise.com. Private projects may provide or fund similar education.

Solid Waste Measures
Reuse and recycle
construction and
demolition waste
(including, but not
limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete,
lumber, metal, and
cardboard).

Construction and demolition materials account for almost 22 percent of the waste stream in California. Reusing and recycling these materials not only conserves natural resources and energy, but can also save money. For a list of best practices and other resources, see California Integrated Waste Management Board, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling (webpage) at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/condemo/.

Integrate reuse and
recycling into residential
industrial, institutional
and commercial
projects.

Tips on developing a successful recycling program, and opportunities for costeffective recycling, are available on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s Zero Waste California website. See
http://zerowaste.ca.gov/.

The Institute for Local Government’s Waste Reduction & Recycling webpage contains examples of “best practices” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, organized around waste reduction and recycling goals and additional examples and resources. See http://www.ca-ilg.org/wastereduction.

Provide easy and
convenient recycling
opportunities for
residents, the public,
and tenant businesses.

Tips on developing a successful recycling program, and opportunities for cost effective recycling, are available on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s Zero Waste California website. See
http://zerowaste.ca.gov/.

Provide education and
publicity about reducing
waste and available
recycling services.

Many cities and counties provide information on waste reduction and recycling.

See, for example, the Butte County Guide to Recycling at http://www.recyclebutte.net.

The California Integrated Waste Management Board’s website contains numerous publications on recycling and waste reduction that may be helpful in devising an education project. See
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?cat=13. Private projects may also provide waste and recycling education directly, or fund education.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 10
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Land Use Measures
Ensure consistency
with “smart growth”
principles –
mixed-use, infill, and
higher density projects
that provide
alternatives to individual
vehicle travel and
promote the efficient
delivery of services and
goods.

U.S. EPA maintains an extensive Smart Growth webpage with links to examples, literature and technical assistance, and financial resources. See http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/index.htm.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s webpage provides smart growth recommendations for communities located near water. See Coastal & Waterfront Smart Growth (webpage) at
http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/. The webpage includes case studies from California.

The California Energy Commission has recognized the important role that land use can play in meeting our greenhouse gas and energy efficiency goals. The agency’s website, Smart Growth & Land Use Planning, contains useful information and links to relevant studies, reports, and other resources. See http://www.energy.ca.gov/landuse/.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s webpage, Smart Growth / Transportation for Livable Communities, includes resources that may be useful to communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. See http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has published examples of smart growth in action in its region. See Examples from the Sacramento Region of the Seven Principles of Smart Growth / Better Ways to Grow, available at http://www.sacog.org/regionalfunding/betterways.pdf.

Meet recognized “smart
growth” benchmarks.

For example, the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating system integrates the principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building into the first national system for neighborhood design. LEED-ND is a collaboration among the U.S. Green Building Council, Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. For more information, see http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.

Educate the public
about the many benefits
of well-designed, higher
density development.

See, for example, U.S. EPA, Growing Smarter, Living Healthier: A Guide to Smart Growth and Active Aging (webpage), discussing how compact, walkable communities can provide benefits to seniors. See
http://www.epa.gov/aging/bhc/guide/index.html.

U.S. EPA, Environmental Benefits of Smart Growth (webpage) at http://www.epa.gov/dced/topics/eb.htm (noting local air and water quality improvements).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Designing and Building Healthy Places (webpage), at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/. The CDC’s website discusses the links between walkable communities and public health and includes numerous links to educational materials.

California Department of Housing and Community Development, Myths and Facts About Affordable and High Density Housing (2002), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/mythsnfacts.pdf.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 11
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Incorporate public
transit into the project’s
design.

Federal Transit Administration, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) (webpage) at http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/planning_environment_6932.html (describing the benefits of TOD as “social, environmental, and fiscal.”) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California (2002), available at http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/miscellaneous/StatewideTOD.htm Caltrans, California Transit-Oriented Development Searchable Database (includes detailed information on numerous TODs), available at http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/miscellaneous/NewHome.jsp.

California Department of Housing and Community Development, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Resources (Aug. 2009), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/tod.pdf.

Preserve and create
open space and parks.

Preserve existing trees,
and plant replacement
trees at a set ratio.

U.S. EPA, Smart Growth and Open Space Conservation (webpage) at http://www.epa.gov/dced/openspace.htm.

Develop “brownfields”
and other underused or
defunct properties near
existing public
transportation and jobs.

U.S. EPA, Smart Growth and Brownfields (webpage) at
http://www.epa.gov/dced/brownfields.htm.

For example, as set forth in the Local Government Commission’s case study, the Town of Hercules, California reclaimed a 426-acre brownfield site, transforming it into a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood. See http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/er_case_studi es.pdf.

For financial resources that can assist in brownfield development, see Center for Creative Land Recycling, Financial Resources for California Brownfields (July 2008), available at http://www.cclr.org/media/publications/8- Financial_Resources_2008.pdf.

Include pedestrian and
bicycle facilities within
projects and ensure
that existing nonmotorized routes are
maintained and
enhanced.

See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (webpage) at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/.

Caltrans, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California / A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for
Caltrans Planners and Engineers (July 2005), available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf. This reference includes standard and innovative practices for pedestrian facilities and traffic calming.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 12
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Meet an identified
transportation-related
benchmark.

A logical benchmark might be related to vehicles miles traveled (VMT), e.g., average VMT per capita, per household, or per employee. As the California Energy Commission has noted, VMT by California residents increased “a rate of more than 3 percent a year between 1975 and 2004, markedly faster than the population growth rate over the same period, which was less than 2 percent. This increase in VMT correlates to an increase in petroleum use and GHG production and has led to the transportation sector being responsible for 41 percent of the state’s GHG emissions in 2004.” CEC, The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals (Aug. 2007) at p. 9, available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007- 008/CEC-600-2007-008-SF.PDF.

Even with regulations designed to increase vehicle efficiency and lower the carbon content of fuel, “reduced VMT growth will be required to meet GHG reductions goals.” Id. at p. 18.

Adopt a comprehensive
parking policy that
discourages private
vehicle use and
encourages the use of
alternative
transportation.

For example, reduce parking for private vehicles while increasing options for alternative transportation; eliminate minimum parking requirements for new buildings; “unbundle” parking (require that parking is paid for separately and is not included in rent for residential or commercial space); and set appropriate pricing for parking.

See U.S. EPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places, Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions (Jan. 2006), available at http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/EPAParkingSpaces06.pdf.

Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (June 2007) at
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar/Toolbox Handbook.pdf.

See also the City of Ventura’s Downtown Parking and Mobility Plan, available at
http://www.cityofventura.net/community_development/resources/mobility_parki ng_plan.pdf, and Ventura’s Downtown Parking Management Program, available at
http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/comm_dev/downtownplan/chapters.asp.

Build or fund a major
transit stop within or
near the development.
“’Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” (Pub. Res.

Code, § 21064.3.)
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a moderate to higher density development located within an easy walk of a major transit stop. http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/miscellaneous/NewWhatisTOD.ht m.

By building or funding a major transit stop, an otherwise ordinary development can become a TOD.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 13
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Provide public transit
incentives such as free
or low-cost monthly
transit passes to
employees, or free ride
areas to residents and
customers.

See U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. EPA, Commuter Choice Primer / An Employer’s Guide to Implementing Effective Commuter Choice Programs, available at
http://www.its.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_PR/13669.html.

The Emery Go Round shuttle is a private transportation service funded by commercial property owners in the citywide transportation business improvement district. The shuttle links a local shopping district to a Bay Area Rapid Transit stop. See http://www.emerygoround.com/.

Seattle, Washington maintains a public transportation “ride free” zone in its downtown from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. See
http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/accessible/paccessible_map.html#fare.

Promote “least
polluting” ways to
connect people and
goods to their
destinations.

Promoting “least polluting” methods of moving people and goods is part of a larger, integrated “sustainable streets” strategy now being explored at U.C.

Davis’s Sustainable Transportation Center. Resources and links are available at the Center’s website, http://stc.ucdavis.edu/outreach/ssp.php.

Incorporate bicycle
lanes, routes and
facilities into street
systems, new
subdivisions, and large
developments.

Bicycling can have a profound impact on transportation choices and air pollution reduction. The City of Davis has the highest rate of bicycling in the nation. Among its 64,000 residents, 17 percent travel to work by bicycle and 41 percent consider the bicycle their primary mode of transportation. See Air Resources Board, Bicycle Awareness Program, Bicycle Fact Sheet, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/bicycle/factsht.htm.

For recommendations on best practices, see the many resources listed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’s Bicycle and Pedestrian website at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/publications.htm.

See also Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation, Designing Highway Facilities To Encourage Walking, Biking and Transit (Preliminary Investigation) (March 2009), available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/doc s/pi-design_for_walking_%20biking_and_transit%20final.pdf.

Require amenities for
non-motorized
transportation, such as
secure and convenient
bicycle parking.

According to local and national surveys of potential bicycle commuters, secure bicycle parking and workplace changing facilities are important complements to safe and convenient routes of travel. See Air Resources Board, Bicycle Awareness Program, Bicycle Fact Sheet, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/bicycle/factsht.htm.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 14
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Ensure that the project
enhances, and does not
disrupt or create
barriers to, nonmotorized
transportation.

See, e.g., U.S. EPA’s list of transit-related “smart growth” publications at http://www.epa.gov/dced/publications.htm#air, including Pedestrian and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth (1999), available at www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf.

See also Toolkit for Improving Walkability in Alameda County, available at http://www.acta2002.com/ped toolkit/ped_toolkit_print.pdf.

Pursuant to the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358, Gov. Code, §§ 65040.2 and 65302), commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, a city or county will be required to modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.

Connect parks and
open space through
shared pedestrian/bike
paths and trails to
encourage walking and
bicycling.

Create bicycle lanes
and walking paths
directed to the location
of schools, parks and
other destination points.

Walk Score ranks the “walkability” of neighborhoods in the largest 40 U.S. cities, including seven California cities. Scores are based on the distance to nearby amenities. Explore Walk Score at http://www.walkscore.com/.

In many markets, homes in walkable neighborhoods are worth more than similar properties where walking is more difficult. See Hoak, Walk appeal / Homes in walkable neighborhoods sell for more: study, Wall Street Journal (Aug. 18, 2009), available at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/homes-inwalkable-neighborhoods-sell-for-more-2009-08-18.

By creating walkable neighborhoods with more transportation choices, Californians could save $31 million and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent, according to a study released by Transform, a coalition of unions and nonprofits. See Windfall for All / How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and Safeguard California's Economy (Nov. 2009), available at http://transformca.org/windfall-for-all#download-report.

Work with the school
districts to improve
pedestrian and bike
access to schools and
to restore or expand
school bus service
using lower-emitting
vehicles.

In some communities, twenty to twenty-five percent of morning traffic is due to parents driving their children to school. Increased traffic congestion around schools in turn prompts even more parents to drive their children to school.

Programs to create safe routes to schools can break this harmful cycle. See California Department of Public Health, Safe Routes to School (webpage) and associated links at
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/injviosaf/Pages/SafeRoutestoSchool.aspx.

See also U.S. EPA, Smart Growth and Schools (webpage), available at http://www.epa.gov/dced/schools.htm.

California Center for Physical Activity, California Walk to School (website) at http://www.cawalktoschool.com
Regular school bus service (using lower-emitting buses) for children who cannot bike or walk to school could substantially reduce private vehicle congestion and air pollution around schools. See Air Resources Board, Lower Emissions School Bus Program (webpage) at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/schoolbus/schoolbus.htm.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 15
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Institute
teleconferencing,
telecommute and/or
flexible work hour
programs to reduce
unnecessary employee
transportation.

There are numerous sites on the web with resources for employers seeking to establish telework or flexible work programs. These include U.S. EPA’s Mobility Management Strategies: Commuter Programs website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/rellinks/mms_commprograms.htm; and Telework, the federal government’s telework website, at http://www.telework.gov/.

Through a continuing FlexWork Implementation Program, the Traffic Solutions division of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments sponsors flexwork consulting, training and implementation services to a limited number of Santa Barbara County organizations that want to create or expand flexwork programs for the benefit of their organizations, employees and the community.

See http://www.flexworksb.com/read_more_about_the_fSBp.html. Other local government entities provide similar services.

Provide information on
alternative
transportation options
for consumers,
residents, tenants and
employees to reduce
transportation-related
emissions.

Many types of projects may provide opportunities for delivering more tailored transportation information. For example, a homeowner’s association could provide information on its website, or an employer might create a Transportation Coordinator position as part of a larger Employee Commute Reduction Program. See, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, Transportation Coordinator training, at http://www.aqmd.gov/trans/traing.html.

Educate consumers,
residents, tenants and
the public about options
for reducing motor
vehicle-related
greenhouse gas
emissions. Include
information on trip
reduction; trip linking;
vehicle performance
and efficiency (e.g.,
keeping tires inflated);
and low or zeroemission vehicles.

See, for example U.S. EPA, SmartWay Transport Partnership: Innovative Carrier Strategies (webpage) at http://www.epa.gov/smartway/transport/whatsmartway/carrier-strategies.htm. This webpage includes recommendations for actions that truck and rail fleets can take to make ground freight more efficient and cleaner.

The Air Resources Board’s Drive Clean website is a resource for car buyers to find clean and efficient vehicles. The web site is designed to educate Californians that pollution levels range greatly between vehicles. See http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/.

The Oregon Department of Transportation and other public and private partners launched the Drive Less/Save More campaign. The comprehensive website contains fact sheets and educational materials to help people drive more efficiently. See http://www.drivelesssavemore.com/.

Purchase, or create
incentives for
purchasing, low or zeroemission vehicles.

See Air Resources Board, Low-Emission Vehicle Program (webpage) at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levprog.htm.

Air Resource Board, Zero Emission Vehicle Program (webpage) at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm.

All new cars sold in California are now required to display an Environmental Performance (EP) Label, which scores a vehicle’s global warming and smog emissions from 1 (dirtiest) to 10 (cleanest). To search and compare vehicle EP Labels, visit www.DriveClean.ca.gov.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 16
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Create a ride sharing
program. Promote
existing ride sharing
programs e.g., by
designating a certain
percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing
vehicles, designating
adequate passenger
loading and unloading
for ride sharing
vehicles, and providing
a web site or message
board for coordinating
rides.

For example, the 511 Regional Rideshare Program is operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and is funded by grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and county congestion management agencies. For more information, see http://rideshare.511.org/.

As another example, San Bernardino Associated Governments works directly with large and small employers, as well as providing support to commuters who wish to share rides or use alternative forms of transportation. See http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/commuter/rideshare.html.

Valleyrides.com is a ridesharing resource available to anyone commuting to and from Fresno and Tulare Counties and surrounding communities. See http://www.valleyrides.com/. There are many other similar websites throughout the state.

Create or
accommodate car
sharing programs, e.g.,
provide parking spaces
for car share vehicles at
convenient locations
accessible by public
transportation.

There are many existing car sharing companies in California. These include City CarShare (San Francisco Bay Area), see http://www.citycarshare.org/; and Zipcar, see http://www.zipcar.com/. Car sharing programs are being successfully used on many California campuses.

Provide a vanpool for
employees.

Many local Transportation Management Agencies can assist in forming vanpools. See, for example, Sacramento Transportation Management Association, Check out Vanpooling (webpage) at http://www.sacramentotma.org/vanpool.html.

Create local “light
vehicle” networks, such
as neighborhood
electric vehicle
systems.

See California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Urban Options - Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) (webpage) at
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/urban_options/nev.html.

The City of Lincoln has an innovative NEV program. See
http://www.lincolnev.com/index.html.

Enforce and follow
limits idling time for
commercial vehicles,
including delivery and
construction vehicles.

Under existing law, diesel-fueled motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds are prohibited from idling for more than 5 minutes at any location. The minimum penalty for an idling violation is now $300 per violation. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/complaints/idling_cv.htm.

Provide the necessary
facilities and
infrastructure to
encourage the use of
low or zero-emission
vehicles.

For a list of existing alternative fuel stations in California, visit http://www.cleancarmaps.com/.

See, e.g., Baker, Charging-station network built along 101, S.F. Chron. (9/23/09), available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-09- 23/news/17207424_1_recharging-solar-array-tesla-motors.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 17
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf Agriculture and Forestry (additional strategies noted above) Require best
management practices
in agriculture and
animal operations to
reduce emissions,
conserve energy and
water, and utilize
alternative energy
sources, including
biogas, wind and solar.

Air Resources Board (ARB), Economic Sectors Portal, Agriculture (webpage) at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ghgsectors/ghgsectors.htm. ARB’s webpage includes information on emissions from manure management, nitrogen fertilizer, agricultural offroad equipment, and agricultural engines. “A full 90% of an agricultural business' electricity bill is likely associated with water use. In addition, the 8 million acres in California devoted to crops consume 80% of the total water pumped in the state.” See Flex Your Power, Agricultural Sector (webpage) at http://www.fypower.org/agri/.

Flex Your Power, Best Practice Guide / Food and Beverage Growers and Processors, available at
http://www.fypower.org/bpg/index.html?b=food_and_bev.

Antle et al., Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Agriculture’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation (2006), available at
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agriculture's%20Role%20in%20GHG% 20Mitigation.pdf.

Preserve forested
areas, agricultural
lands, wildlife habitat
and corridors, wetlands,
watersheds,
groundwater recharge
areas and other open
space that provide
carbon sequestration
benefits.
“There are three general means by which agricultural and forestry practices can reduce greenhouse gases: (1) avoiding emissions by maintaining existing carbon storage in trees and soils; (2) increasing carbon storage by, e.g., tree planting, conversion from conventional to conservation tillage practices on agricultural lands; (3) substituting biobased fuels and products for fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and energy-intensive products that generate greater quantities of CO2 when used.” U.S. EPA, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, Frequently Asked Questions (webpage) at
http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html.

Air Resources Board, Economic Sectors Portal, Forestry (webpage) at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ghgsectors/ghgsectors.htm.

Protect existing trees
and encourage the
planting of new trees.

Adopt a tree protection
and replacement
ordinance.

Tree preservation and planting is not just for rural areas of the state; suburban and urban forests can also serve as carbon sinks. See Cal Fire, Urban and Community Forestry (webpage) at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/resource_mgt_urbanforestry.php.

Off-Site Mitigation
If, after analyzing and requiring all reasonable and feasible on-site mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas-related impacts, the lead agency determines that additional mitigation is required, the agency may consider additional off-site mitigation. The project proponent could, for example, fund off-site mitigation projects that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase verifiable carbon “credits” from another entity that will undertake mitigation.

AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 18
[Rev. 1/6/2010]
Available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf The topic of off-site mitigation can be complicated. A full discussion is outside the scope of this summary document. Issues that the lead agency should consider include:
• The location of the off-site mitigation. (If the off-site mitigation is far from the project, any additional, non-climate related co-benefits of the mitigation may be lost to the local community.)
• Whether the emissions reductions from off-site mitigation can be quantified and verified. (The California Registry has developed a number of protocols for calculating, reporting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, industry-specific protocols are available for the cement sector, power/utility sector, forest sector and local government operations. For more information, visit the California Registry’s website at http://www.climateregistry.org/.) • Whether the mitigation ratio should be greater than 1:1 to reflect any uncertainty about the effectiveness of the off-site mitigation.

Offsite mitigation measures that could be funded through mitigation fees include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Energy efficiency audits of existing buildings.
• Energy efficiency upgrades to existing buildings not otherwise required by law, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation and weatherization (perhaps targeted to specific communities, such as low-income or senior residents).
• Programs to encourage the purchase and use of energy efficient vehicles, appliances, equipment and lighting.
• Programs that create incentives to replace or retire polluting vehicles and engines.
• Programs to expand the use of renewable energy and energy storage. • Preservation and/or enhancement of existing natural areas (e.g., forested areas, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, watersheds, and groundwater recharge areas) that provide carbon sequestration benefits. • Improvement and expansion of public transit and low- and zero-carbon transportation alternatives.

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 12 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 7: Consultant Response – July 12, 2022

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PLANNING ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ● ECONOMICS ● MAPPING 16388 EAST COLIMA ROAD, SUITE 206●HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745 PHONE 626-336-0033 ● CELLULAR 562-556-4542 ● E-Mail [email protected] 1 July 12, 2021
Mr. Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
City of Santa Fe Springs Planning Department
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, California 90670
Subject: Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed 11401 Greenstone Avenue Industrial Building.

Mr. Velasco
On behalf of Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning (BBEP), I am submitting this memorandum outlining our responses to the comments received regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the proposed 11401 Greenstone Avenue industrial building.

Comment 1
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the proposed development of a 137,000 square foot concrete tilt-up industrial building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue in Santa Fe Springs (DPA 980), proposed by applicant CEG Construction (“Project”). The City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) has prepared a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for the Project. We request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts.

Response 1
While we do not agree with the conclusions outlined in the above comment, it has been noted for the record. Our objections to the above comment are outlined in Response 2.

Comment 2
Failure to Provide Notice. On April 1, 2021, we sent a written notice request letter requesting notice of any document released pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including any MND, EIR or CEQA exemption. (Exhibit A). The April 2 request was filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City released an MND for the Project on May 21, 2021, but it appears from our records that the City failed to provide us with notice of the MND. As a result, we were denied our right to have at least 20-days to review and comments on the MND. We therefore request that the City continue the Planning Commission hearing for at least 20-days to allow us the right to review and comment on the MND. We reserve the right to file a petition for writ of mandate against the City seeking a writ of mandate to require the City to comply with CEQA’s notice requirements.

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Response 2
The Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOIA) was filed at the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office.

Comment 3
There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Adverse Environmental Impacts. As the Supreme Court held, “If no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”), citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491, 504–505) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 927.

An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego, 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440 (1989). CEQA contains a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

Response 3
The comment fails to identify the substantial evidence that supports the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project. The City, in its capacity as Lead Agency for the proposed project oversaw the preparation of an initial study that evaluated all of the required CEQA issue areas that included the following:
● Aesthetics (Section 3.1);
● Agricultural &Forestry Resources (Section 3.2);
● Air Quality (Section 3.3);

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

● Biological Resources (Section 3.4);
● Cultural Resources (Section 3.5);
● Energy (Section 3.6)
● Geology & Soils (Section 3.7);
● Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (Section 3.8);
● Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Section 3.9);
● Hydrology & Water Quality (Section 3.10);
● Land Use & Planning (Section 3.11);
● Mineral Resources (Section 3.12);
● Noise (Section 3.13);
● Population & Housing (Section 3.14);
● Public Services (Section 3.15);
● Recreation (Section 3.16);
● Transportation (Section 3.17);
● Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 3.18);
● Utilities (Section 3.19);
● Wildfire (Section 3.20); and,
● Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 3.21).

All of the above issues were analyzed in noted sections of the initial study. The comment also implied that the analysis determined that the project would not result in any impacts. In fact, the Initial study determined that the following mitigation was required:

Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Cultural Resources). The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Hazardous Materials). The project Applicant must retain the services of a qualified professional to oversee the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that will focus on the handling, storage, and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. The SMP will be reviewed and must be approved by the City of Santa Fe Springs and the Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SMP must be approved by the city prior to commencement of any removal of contaminated soils. The SMP mitigation will end once the project’s construction activities commence.

Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Hazardous Materials). The project Applicant will be required obtain the services of a qualified contractor to design and install proper ventilation in all enclosed spaces so as to prevent the buildup of methane and carbon monoxide. All of the units must contain methane and carbon dioxide (multi gas) monitors and alarms. All of the monitors must be maintained in good working order. The monitors must be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The City will make the determination as to the type of the vapor intrusion barrier that will be required and whether it will use passive or active venting prior to the approval of the proposed project.

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Mitigation Measure No. 4 (Tribal Cultural Resources). The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities.

Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

Finally, the Initial Study clearly identified the thresholds that were used to determine the level of significance.

Comment 4
There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts. There is a fair argument that the Project will have adverse air quality impacts. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) has adopted CEQA screening thresholds. (Exhibit B). Although this Project is located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), the thresholds of the two agencies and similar and SCAQMD has not adopted similar screening thresholds. Therefore, the exceedance of the BAAQMD thresholds establishes a “fair argument” that the Project will also exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The BAAQMD thresholds provide that an industrial building of over 121,000 square feet may have significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. The Project is137,000 square feet, and therefore exceeds this screening threshold. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant GHG impacts that should be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR. Feasible mitigation measures may include installation of solar panels, energy efficiency measures that exceed Title 24 requirements, requirements for electrified forklifts, trucks and other equipment, and many other measures, including measures suggested by the California Attorney General. (Exhibit C).

Response 4
According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the interim thresholds for industrial projects are 10,000 MTCO2E per year.1 Table 3-3 included in the Initial Study, summarizes annual greenhouse gas (CO2E) emissions from build-out of the proposed project. The preparers of the Initial Study contacted the SCAQMD’s Intergovernmental Review Team and confirmed this approach. This analysis utilized the CalEEMod computer model developed for both the SCAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2E, is a term that is used for describing different greenhouse gases in a common and collective unit. As indicated in Table 3-3, the MTCO2E total for the project is 10,374.34 pounds per day or 4.66 MTCO2E per day. This translates into an annual emission of 1,703.98 MTCO2E, which is much lower than the aforementioned threshold of 10,000 MTCO2E for industrial projects.

We also do not agree that using an adopted thresholds for the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) would be more applicable to this project. In fact, the determination of GHG impacts is more complicated than the comment alludes to. For example, the BAAPCD utilizes the Urbemis computer model to determine GHG emissions which is no longer used in the South Coast Air Basin. 1 SCAQMD. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Agenda No. 31.

December 5, 2008. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Comment 5
The MND’s Analysis of Energy Impacts is Conclusory and Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project’s Energy Impacts will be less than Significant. The MND devoted less than two pages to its energy analysis. (MND, pp. 44-45.) The MND relies on the Project’s compliance with Title 24 regulations to conclude that the impact is less than significant. However, compliance with existing standards does not provide substantial evidence that the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.

The standard under CEQA is whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake “an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” violates CEQA. (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213.) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.) Simply requiring compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (Title 24) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-65 (Ukiah Citizens).) Similarly, the court in City of Woodland held unlawful an energy analysis that relied on compliance with Title 24, that failed to assess transportation energy impacts, and that failed to address renewable energy impacts. (City of Woodland, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 209-13.) As such, the MND’s reliance on Title 24 compliance does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the Project’s energy impacts.

The MND summarily concludes that the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. There is no discussion of the Project's cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements.

There is no discussion of energy consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the Project, including the energy necessary to power construction equipment, forklifts, heating, cooling, truck refrigeration units, etc. The Project's energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, and maintenance were not identified. The effect of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity has not been addressed. As such, the MND’s conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy impacts under CEQA.

Response 6
The project site is served by Southern California Edison (electricity) and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). The IS/MND indicates the proposed project is anticipated to consume 1,899 kWH of electricity and 1,860 cubic feet of natural gas on a daily basis. The Title 24, Building Standards Code, California Energy Code and California Green Building standards would be applicable to the project. Adherence to Title 24 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant level. The proposed project’s construction and operation would not be unique in terms of the manner in which energy would be consumed. The CalEEMod computer analysis calculated worker trips, construction equipment, energy consumption, and a wide range of other impacts analysis directly related to energy consumption. Finally, the City is a partner in the HERO program which is a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program that assists both government and businesses to finance energy-efficient improvements and upgrades. The program is a loan financial option which is financed through property tax. The projects eligible include solar energy systems, central air conditioning, cool roofing, energy efficient windows and doors, water heaters, and more.

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Comment 7
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City continue the Planning Commission hearing for at least 20-days to provide the legally required public comment period. We also request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. Thank you.

Response 7
The comment is noted for the record.

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 13 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 8: Planning Commission Resolution No. 190-2021

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 14 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 9: Appeal – July 22, 2021

VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
July 22, 2021
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Wayne M. Morrell, Director
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Planning Commission
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)
Dear City Clerk Martinez,
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the proposed development of a 137,000 square foot concrete tilt-up industrial building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue in Santa Fe Springs (DPA 980), proposed by applicant CEG Construction (“Project”).

The City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) has prepared a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for the Project. We request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts.

Pursuant to Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code section 155.865, SAFER hereby appeals the July 12, 2021 decision of the Planning Commission approving the MND for the Project and granting the Project approvals. We request a hearing before the City Council.

Please notify us of the hearing date and any CEQA decisions pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2 and 21167(f). Thank you.

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 15 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 10: Letter from SAFER – August 16, 2021

VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
August 16, 2021
Mayor John M. Mora
And Honorable Members of the
City Council
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
[email protected]
Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Wayne M. Morrell, Director
Planning Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Fe Springs
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
[email protected]

Re: CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)
Dear Mayor Mora, City Council Members, Mr. Velasco, Mr. Morrell, and Ms. Martinez, I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the proposed development of a 144,434 square foot concrete tiltup industrial building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue in Santa Fe Springs (DPA 980), proposed by applicant CEG Construction (“Project”). The City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”) has prepared a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) for the Project. We request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. We have timely appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Project and the MND.

These comments are supported by the comments of the expert consulting firm, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), authored by Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Matthew Hagemann, C. Hg. (Exhibit 1). We incorporate the SWAPE comments herein by reference. As explained below and in the SWAPE comments, there is a fair argument that the proposed Project may have significant adverse environmental August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

impacts, and an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is therefore required. In particular, SWAPE demonstrates that the MND relies on improper and unsubstantiated input parameters for its air quality analysis which result in a significant underestimation of the Project’s air impacts. SWAPE also concludes that the Project will create significant cancer risks exceeding CEQA significance thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). SWAPE further concludes that the MND contains a patently inadequate energy impact analysis that fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As such, there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts and an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts.

A. Failure to Provide Notice
On April 1, 2021, SAFER sent a written notice request letter requesting notice of any document released pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including any MND, EIR or CEQA exemption. (Exhibit 2). The April 2 request was filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City released an MND for the Project on May 21, 2021, but the City failed to provide us with notice of the MND. As a result, we were denied our right to have at least 20-days to review and comments on the MND. The City’s staff report includes a report from Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning (“BBEP”). BBEP admits that the City failed to provide written notice of the MND to SAFER, but instead merely posted a notice of intent to adopt the MND with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Thus, BBEP admits that the City violated the clear mandates of CEQA. CEQA requires the City of provide written notices to entities that request notice pursuant to Section 21092.2.

Simply posting notice with the County Clerk does not satisfy this mandatory duty.

SAFER intends to seek a writ of mandate requiring the City to comply with this mandatory duty.

B. There is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Adverse Environmental Impacts.

1. Legal Standard.

As the Supreme Court held, “If no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320 (“CBE v.

SCAQMD”), citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

491, 504–505) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.

The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 927.

An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego, 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440 (1989). CEQA contains a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927 (emphasis in original).

2. The MND’s Analysis of Energy Impacts is Conclusory and Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project’s Energy Impacts will be less than Significant.

SWAPE concludes that the MND contains a patently inadequate energy analysis. (SWAPE, 15-18). SWAPE points out that there are numerous mitigation measures that are feasible to reduce the Project’s impacts that should be considered in an EIR.

The MND devoted less than two pages to its energy analysis. (MND, pp. 44-45.) The MND relies on the Project’s compliance with Title 24 regulations to conclude that the impact is less than significant. However, compliance with existing standards does August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

not provide substantial evidence that the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.

The standard under CEQA is whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake “an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” violates CEQA. (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213.) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.)
Simply requiring compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (Title 24) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-65 (Ukiah Citizens).) Similarly, the court in City of Woodland held unlawful an energy analysis that relied on compliance with Title 24, that failed to assess transportation energy impacts, and that failed to address renewable energy impacts. (City of Woodland, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 209-13.) As such, the MND’s reliance on Title 24 compliance does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the Project’s energy impacts.

BBEP admits that the MND merely relies on compliance with Title 24 for energy compliance, but contends that this is sufficient analysis under CEQA. (BBEP 5). First, the BBEP letter is unsigned. Therefore, there is no expert or any person with any credentials making the statements in the BBEP letter. It is unclear whether the author of the BBEP letter has any qualifications whatsoever relevant to the statements made in the letter. As such the BBEP letter lacks any credibility and does not constitute substantial evidence. (Citizens' Com. to Save Our Vill. v. City of Claremont, 37 Cal.

App. 4th 1157, 1171, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 288 (1995)). Second the BBEP letter patently misstates the law. This is not surprising since BBEP appears not to be a law firm or entity qualified to provide legal advice.

The MND summarily concludes that the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. There is no discussion of the Project's cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements. There is no discussion of energy consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the Project, including the energy necessary to power construction equipment, forklifts, heating, cooling, truck refrigeration units, etc. The Project's energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, and maintenance were not identified. The effect of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity has not been addressed. As such, the August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

MND’s conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy impacts under CEQA.

3. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Air Quality By Failing to Input Correct Parameters into the IS/MND’s Emissions Calculations.

The IS/MND used the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2020.4.0 (“CalEEMod”) to calculate emissions from the Project. However, SWAPE concludes that several of the assumptions used and values input into CalEEMod were inconsistent with both information disclosed in the IS/MND as well as recommended procedures and values set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). Had the Project’s emissions been calculated using the correct parameters, the Project would have a potentially significant impact on air quality. As such, the Project’s air quality impacts have not been properly analyzed and mitigated. Accordingly, the following points constitute substantial evidence that support a fair argument that the IS/MND failed to properly calculate the Project’s emissions and that the Project will thus have significant unmitigated impacts. (SWAPE 3). a. The IS/MND Improperly Assumes That the Project Will Not Involve Refrigeration.

The IS/MND significantly underestimated the Project’s operational emissions by assuming that all warehouses at the Project will be unrefrigerated. The CalEEMod calculations were premised entirely on the notion that the proposed industrial building was modeled as an unrefrigerated warehouse. (IS/MND 14.) However, the IS/MND is clear that the future tenant of the industrial building is not currently known. (IS. 19).

The CalEEMod output files demonstrate that the model fails to include any refrigerated warehouse space. (IS/MND 107).

SCAQMD requires the use of a conservative air quality impact analysis to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment. As discussed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), “CEQA requires the use of ‘conservative analysis’ to afford ‘fullest possible protection of the environment.’”1 In this case, a conservative analysis would dictate modeling the proposed warehouse as either entirely or partially refrigerated. SWAPE’s letter explains that refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses. Thus, by failing to include refrigerated warehouses a 1 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-qualityanalysis/final-ielc_6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

potential land use in the CalEEMod calculations, the Project’s operational emissions may be substantially underestimated, and would thus likely result in a significant impact on regional air quality. This constitutes substantial evidence that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the impacts of the Project’s operational emissions and to mitigate those impacts.
b. Failure to Model All Proposed Land Use Types.

The Project proposes to include 205 parking spaces and 16 truck doors. (IS/MND 15, Table 2-1). However, the CalEEMod output files show that the models fails to include any parking whatsoever. (IS/MND, App. A, p. 107). Thus, the model clearly underestimates overall Project emissions. (SWAPE 5-6).
c. Failure to Model Demolition Activities.

The Project includes the demolition of an existing office and maintenance building. (MND 12). Demolition involves activities including haul trips for demolition debris. The CalEEMod output files show zero emissions from haul trips. (IS/MND, App.

A, p. 112; SWAPE 6). SWAPE concludes that the MND fails to include emissions from haul trips, dust generated during demolition, exhaust emissions from trucks and other emissions. As such, the overall Project emissions are clearly underestimated. (SWAPE 6-7).
d. Failure to Include Proposed Construction Schedule.

The MND’s CalEEMod output files show that unsubstantiated changes have been made to the default construction schedule, which result in a reduction in Project emissions. (SWAPE 7). The MND itself states that construction will take approximately nine months to complete. (MND 15). However, the CalEEMod model assumed an 11- month construction schedule. (IS/MND, App. A, p. 111; SWAPE 7). SWAPE explains that by spreading out construction emissions over a longer period of time, the MND improperly minimized daily construction emissions. (SWAPE 8). e. Unsubstantiated Reductions in Grading Values.

SWAPE concludes that the CalEEMod model improperly reduced the amount of grading for the Project, resulting in an unsubstantiated reduction in emissions. (SWAPE 9). The CalEEMod grading values were reduced from 15 to 8 acres for the grading phase and from 22.5 to 7.5 acres for the paving phase. (SWAPE 9). This result in a significant underestimation of Project emissions without proper justification. f. Failure to Evaluate Excavation Emissions.

August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a Remedial Action Plan that requires excavation of 3,300 cubic ward of contaminated soil from the Project site. (SWAPE 9). Therefore, the CalEEMod model should include emissions from excavation and hauling of 3,300 cubic yards of soil. However, the air quality analysis fails to include any emissions whatsoever from excavation. (SWAPE 9-10). As such the MND underestimates overall Project emissions.
g. The IS/MND Incorrectly Relies on the Fontana Truck Trip Study to for the Truck Trip Rate and for the Fleet Mix.

The IS/MND relies upon an artificially low truck trip rate and truck fleet mix percentage to model the Project’s operational emissions, and as a result the Project’s mobile-source emissions are greatly underestimated. (SWAPE 1-2).

The IS/MND’s Traffic Impact Analysis and AQ/GHG Assessment rely on the August 2003 City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (“Fontana Study”),2 to determine the number of passenger car and heavy-duty truck trips the Project will generate during operation (SWAPE 2). The SCAQMD has advised against reliance on the Fontana Study. According to SCAQMD Staff, the Fontana Study has limited applicability. As a result, the Fontana Study should not be relied upon to determine the Project’s mobile-source emissions.

According to SCAQMD staff, the “Fontana Study, by itself, is not characteristic of warehouses.”3 Furthermore, SCAQMD staff finds the following additional issues with the Fontana Study: 4
 The overall trip rate is based on only four warehouses total, which includes two warehouses with zeros. In other words, the results of the Fontana Study were based 2 “Truck Trip Generation Study.” City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, August 2003, available at:
http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622
3 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-qualityanalysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 10 4 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-qualityanalysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 10 August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

on only two data points. As is disclosed in the Fontana Study, the daily trip rate was only based on data from a Target warehouse and a TAB warehouse.5  The Fontana Study does not report any 24-hour daily truck trip rates. According to the Fontana Study, “Trip generation statistics for daily truck trips were not calculated because vehicle classifications counts could not be obtained from the driveway 24- hour counts.”6
 The trip rates using the Fontana study are calculated based on a 20 percent truck fleet mix, which is inconsistent with SCAQMD’s recommendation that agencies use a truck fleet mix of 40%.

Due to these reasons, SCAQMD recommends that Project Applicants either “use ITE default values until Governing Board action” (Option 1) or refer to the flow chart set forth in the SWAPE comments at page 6 (Option 2). 7 Thus, the IS/MND’s improper reliance on the Fontana Study misrepresented the actual air quality impacts of the Project. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses and mitigates these impacts.

4. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Human Health from Diesel Particulate Emissions Associated with Project Construction.

The IS/MND includes no health risk assessment (“HRA”). SWAPE has prepared a detailed HRA concluding that the Project will create significant cancer risks from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) from emissions of trucks and construction equipment. (SWAPE 10-15). The Supreme Court has held that a CEQA document must analyze the human health risks of a proposed Project. (Sierra Club v. Co. of Fresno, 6 Cal. 5th 502, 518, 431 P.3d 1151, 1163 (2018)).

SWAPE prepared a health risk assessment which demonstrates that construction related DPM emissions from the Project exceed applicable CEQA significance thresholds. SWAPE concludes:

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR located 5 “Truck Trip Generation Study.” City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, August 2003, available at:
http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622, p. 35 6 “Truck Trip Generation Study.” City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, August 2003, available at:
http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622, p. 6 7 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-qualityanalysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 11 August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

approximately 300 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, are approximately 0.28, 2.6, 8.0, and 1.2 in one million, respectively. We estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 12 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.
(SWAPE, p. 14).

Mr. Hagemann’s analysis provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that construction emissions from the Project may have significant impacts on human health and the environment. Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze these impacts and evaluate potential mitigation measures to address the impacts.

5. IS/MND Fails to Impose All Feasible Mitigation Measures.

SWAPE points out that there are dozens of feasible mitigation measures that have been imposed on other similar projects that should be required for the Project. (SWAPE 16). However, since an MND was prepared rather than an EIR, these mitigation measures were not imposed. An EIR should be prepared to analyze all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant impacts.

One of the fundamental purposes of CEQA is to ensure that all feasible mitigation measures are imposed to reduce Project impacts. CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (Guidelines §15002(a)(2)) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub.Res.Code § 21081; 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B))
In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.

CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a)), and describe those mitigation measures in the CEQA document. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(2).) A lead agency may not conclude that an impact is significant and unavoidable without requiring the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of a project to less than significant levels. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4, 15091.)
SWAPE concludes that the following mitigation measures should be considered in an EIR:
 Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.  Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
 Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
 Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
 Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.  Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
 Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes.  Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.

August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

 Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.  Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.  Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
 Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
 Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article

4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.  Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
 Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
 Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
 Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
 Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.  Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
 Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
 Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
 Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.  Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.  Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.

August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

 Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
 Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.  Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
 Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards.  Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
 Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
 Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
 Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARBapproved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
 Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
 Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets. (SWAPE 15-18).

An EIR should be prepared to analyze all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant environmental impacts.

August 17, 2021
DPA 980 (Industrial Building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue)

C. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City continue the City Council hearing for at least 20-days to provide the legally required public comment period. We also request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT 1
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]
August 3, 2021
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Greenstone Ave Industrial Development Project Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the May 2021 Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Greenstone Avenue Industrial Development Project (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Fe Springs (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 144,434-SF building, including 134,995-SF of warehouse space, 5,421-SF of office space, 4,018-SF of storage space, and a 6,958-SF mezzanine, as well as 205 parking spaces and 16 loading docks, on the 6.63-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality
Incorrect Use of the Fontana Truck Trip Study
According to the Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”), the Project relies upon the on the City of Fontana’s August 2003 Truck Trip Generation Study (“Fontana Study”)1 to determine the operational vehicle fleet mix for the Project’s trip generation calculations (see excerpt below) (p. 22, Table 6). 1 “Truck Trip Generation Study.” City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622 2 As you can see in the excerpt above, the TIS utilizes the Fontana Study to determine the operational vehicle fleet mix for the Project’s trip generation calculations. However, SCAQMD staff have determined that the Fontana Study has limited applicability to warehouse projects. As a result, the Fontana Study should not be relied upon to determine the Project’s operational mobile-source emissions. Specifically, the SCAQMD staff found the following issues with the Fontana Study: 2 • The overall trip rate is based on only four warehouses total, which includes two warehouses with zeros. In other words, the results of the Fontana Study were based on only two data points. As is 2 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-ratestudy-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 10 3 disclosed in the Fontana Study, the daily trip rate was only based on data from a Target warehouse and a TAB warehouse.3
• The Fontana Study does not report any 24-hour daily truck trip rates. According to the Fontana Study, “[t]rip generation statistics for daily truck trips were not calculated because vehicle classifications counts could not be obtained from the driveway 24-hour counts” (emphasis added).4 As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the Fontana Study is unreliable due to the fact that it only evaluated two data points and zero 24-hour daily truck trip rates. As such, the TIS should not rely upon the Fontana Study to estimate the operational vehicle fleet mix associated with the proposed warehouse land use. A revised TIS should be prepared and included in an EIR that adequately assesses the Project’s transportation-related impacts.

Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod V.2020.4.0 (p. 31).5 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.6 Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values were changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.7
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Worksheets (“AQ Worksheets”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Failure to Consider Cold Storage Requirements
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model fails to consider potential cold storage requirements. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions may be underestimated. 3 “Truck Trip Generation Study.” City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622, p. 35 4 “Truck Trip Generation Study.” City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California, August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622, p. 6 5 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/. 6 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 7 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 11, 12 – 13. A key feature of the CalEEMod program is the “remarks” feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a “user defined” value. These remarks are included in the report.
4 Regarding the proposed Project, the IS/MND states:
“The proposed project will involve the construction of a new 144,434 square foot warehouse building within the 6.63-acre site” (emphasis added) (IS/MND, p. 14).

Furthermore, the IS/MND goes on to state:
“The specific business and/or tenant(s) that would ultimately occupy the proposed building are not known at this time” (IS/MND, p. 19).

As the excerpts above demonstrate, the IS/MND specifies that future tenants of the proposed warehouse are unknown. As such, the warehouse may require cold storage. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model fails to include any amount of refrigerated warehouse space (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 107).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to account for cold storage requirements whatsoever. This inadequacy presents an issue, as refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for three reasons. First, warehouses equipped with cold storage (refrigerators and freezers, for example) are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage.8 Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks.9 Third, according to an October 2016 Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) report entitled High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, cold storage warehouses result in greater trip rates when compared to transload & short-term storage warehouses.10 Furthermore, as is discussed by the SCAQMD, “CEQA requires the use of ‘conservative analysis’ to afford ‘fullest possible protection of the environment.’”11 As such, the warehouse land use should have been modeled as refrigerated space in order account for the additional emissions that refrigeration requirements may generate.

By modeling the Project’s emissions without refrigerated warehouse space, the IS/MND may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to account for the possibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by future tenants.
8 Managing Energy Costs in Warehouses, Business Energy Advisor, available at:
http://bizenergyadvisor.com/warehouses
9 “Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks,” p. 8, available at:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/373.pdf
10 “HIGH-CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS.” ITE, October 2016, available at:
https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=a3e6679a%2De3a8%2Dbf38%2D7f29%2D2961becdd498, p. 13. 11 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-triprate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc_6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 5 Failure to Model All Proposed Land Use Types
According to the IS/MND, the Project includes 5,421-SF of office space within the proposed 144,434-SF warehouse building (p. 3). As such, the Project’s CalEEMod model should have included 139,013-SF of “Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail” and 5,421-SF of “General Office Building.” However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model fails to include any office space (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 107).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to distinguish between the warehouse and office land uses. This inconsistency presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.12 Furthermore, each land use type includes a specific trip rate that CalEEMod uses to calculate mobile-source emissions.13 Thus, by failing to input the proposed 139,013-SF of warehouse space and 5,421-SF of office space, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Include Proposed Parking Land Use
According to the IS/MND, the Project proposes to include 205 parking spaces and 16 truck doors (see excerpt below) (p. 15, Table 2-1).

As such, the model should have included 221 spaces of “Parking Lot.” However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model fails to include any parking whatsoever (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 107).
12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 13 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 14. 6 This omission presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.14 Furthermore, the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square footage of parking land uses is used for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).
15 Thus, by failing to include the proposed parking land use, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Include Demolition
According to the IS/MND, “[a]n office and a maintenance building occupy the northeast corner of the property and these improvements will be removed when development commences” (p. 12).

Furthermore, when describing the Project’s anticipated grading and site preparation phases, the IS/MND states that “[a]ll of the existing onsite improvements will be removed during this phase” (p. 15).

As such, the IS/MND should have disclosed the specific square footage of buildings to be demolished or the tons of debris resulting from this demolition, as well as included the accurate amount of demolition in the model.

According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “[h]aul trips are based on the amount of material that is demolished, imported or exported assuming a truck can handle 16 cubic yards of material.”16 Therefore, the air model calculates a default number of hauling trips based upon the amount of demolition material inputted into the model. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model includes zero hauling trips (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 112).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the model failed to include any demolition in the model. This underestimation presents an issue, as the total amount of demolition material is used by CalEEMod to determine emissions associated with this phase of construction; the three primary operations that generate dust emission during the demolition phase are mechanical or explosive dismemberment, site 14 “CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 15 “CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2. 16 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14 7 removal of debris, and on-site truck traffic on paved and unpaved road.17 By failing to include any demolition, the model underestimates the emissions associated with fugitive dust, site removal, as well as exhaust from hauling trucks traveling to and from the site, and should not be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.

Failure to Include Proposed Construction Schedule
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model includes unsubstantiated changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 107- 108).

As a result of these changes, the model includes a construction schedule as follows (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 111):

Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, the IS/MND states:
“The construction of the phase for the proposed project would take approximately nine months to complete. The key construction phases are outlined below:
17 CalEEMod User Guide: Appendix A, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 11. 8 • Grading and Site Preparation. The project site will be readied for the construction of the proposed project. All of the existing onsite improvements will be removed during this phase.

This must be done prior to building construction. This phase will take approximately one month to complete.
• Construction. The new building will be constructed during this phase. This phase will take approximately four months to complete.
• Paving. This phase will involve the addition of paving of the roadway and parking areas. This phase will take approximately two months to complete.
• Landscaping and Finishing. This phase will involve the planting of landscaping, painting of the building, and the completion of the on-site improvements. This phase will last approximately two months” (emphasis added) (p. 15).

However, as you can see in the excerpts above, the model includes a construction schedule that is almost 11-months long, rather than the 9-month schedule proposed by the IS/MND. Specifically, the site preparation and grading phases are a total of 2.5 months, rather than only one month. The building construction phase is 5.5 months, instead of the four-month building construction phase indicated by the IS/MND. Finally, the paving phase is not entirely two months as specified by the IS/MND.

The incorrect changes to the construction schedule present an issue, as they improperly spread out construction emissions over a longer period of time for some phases but not others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).18
As such, by disproportionately altering individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model’s calculations are altered and may underestimate emissions. Thus, by including an unsubstantiated construction schedule, the model may underestimate the Project’s constructionrelated emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 18 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 31. 9 Unsubstantiated Reductions to Acres of Grading Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model includes reductions to the Project’s default acres of grading values (see excerpt below) (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 108).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the acres of grading values were reduced by approximately 47% for the grading phase, from the default value of 15 to 8 acres, and approximately 67% for the paving phase, from the default value of 22.5 to 7.5 acres. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.19 According to the “User Entered Comments & NonDefault Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Site Plan” (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 107). However, review of the IS/MND reveals that these changes are not mentioned or substantiated whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify the revised acres of grading values.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading value to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.20 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default acres of grading values, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Evaluate Air Quality Impacts from Excavation According to a letter from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) dated June 1, 2021, the July 2019 Remedial Action Plan Addendum (“RAP Addendum”) proposes to excavate and remove 3,300 cubic yards (“cy”) of contaminated soil from the site. 21 As such, the Project’s
air modeling should have included 3,300 cy of material export. However, review of the IS/MND demonstrates that the Project’s air quality analysis fails to mention or quantify the air quality impacts of the proposed excavation whatsoever. Furthermore, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model fails to include any amount of material export.

This omission presents an issue, as the inclusion of material export within the model is necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and additional hauling truck trips.22 As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the amount of material export required for the Project, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not 19 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 20 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 9. 21 “CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF REVISED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ADDENDUM.” Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, June 2021, available at:
https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/1449994742/Riverside%20 Steel%20-%20Approval%20of%20Revised%20RAP%20Addendum%20and%20Feasibility%20Evaluation.pdf, p. 5. 22 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 34. 10 be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the air quality impacts resulting from the required excavation.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND fails to mention the Project’s construction-related and operational toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions or conduct a quantified construction and operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). This is incorrect for three reasons.

First, construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 9 months (p. 15). Furthermore, the TIS indicates that the Project would generate approximately 251 average daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to exposure nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 22, Table 6). However, the IS/MND fails to discuss potential Project-generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the State of California Department of Justice recommends the preparation of a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.23 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all shortterm projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration vastly exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance.

Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).

Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6- month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an EIR for the Project. 23 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 11 Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction and operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable SCAQMD numeric threshold of 10 in one million, and lacks evidence to support its conclusion that the health risk would be under the threshold.24 Thus, pursuant to CEQA, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we prepared updated CalEEMod models, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated model, we considered potential cold storage requirements; included the correct land use types and sizes, as well as the correct construction schedule, as proposed by the IS/MND; modeled the required amount of material export; and omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the acres of grading values.

In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model. 25 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA26 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)27 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s health-related impact to sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from SWAPE’s updated CalEEMod model, as the IS/MND fails to disclose their annual CalEEMod output file. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the 3rd trimester stage of life. SWAPE’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities would generate approximately 87 pounds of DPM over the 253-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
24 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 25 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 26 “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 27 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf 12 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 87.2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
253 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00181 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 253-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 29.31 years, approximately. The IS/MND’s annual CalEEMod model indicates that operational activities will generate approximately 10 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 10.4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000149 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 6.63-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of 266 by 101 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.28 According to the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 950 feet, or 290 meters, to the east of the Project site (p. 24). Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 0.8521 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 300-meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.08521 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.07063 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 300-meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.007063 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. Consistent with the 253-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.44 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years); and the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes remaining 1.56 years of the 28 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 4-36 13 infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire the adult stage of life (16 – 30 years).

Consistent with OEHHA guidance, as recommended by the State of California Department of Justice and

SCAQMD,
29, 30 we used Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASFs”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.31 According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003. This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD, the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.32 Finally, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors. We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. 29 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 30 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058).” SCAQMD, March 2019, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/commentletters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4. 31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5, Table 8.3. 32 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19. “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 14 The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Activity Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kgday)
Cancer Risk
without
ASFs*
ASF
Cancer
Risk with
ASFs*
Construction 0.25 0.08521 361 1.2E-07 10 1.2E-06
3rd Trimester
Duration 0.25 1.2E-07
3rd
Trimester
Exposure

1.2E-06
Construction 0.44 0.08521 1090 6.2E-07 10 6.2E-06
Operation 1.56 0.007063 1090 1.8E-07 10 1.8E-06
Infant Exposure
Duration 2.00 8.0E-07 Infant Exposure 8.0E-06
Operation 14.00 0.007063 572 8.5E-07 3 2.6E-06
Child Exposure
Duration 14.00 8.5E-07 Child Exposure 2.6E-06
Operation 14.00 0.007063 261 2.8E-07 1 2.8E-07
Adult Exposure
Duration 14.00 2.8E-07 Adult Exposure 2.8E-07
Lifetime Exposure
Duration 30.00 2.0E-06 Lifetime Exposure 1.2E-05
* We, along with CARB and SCAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs.

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR located approximately 300 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, are approximately 0.28, 2.6, 8.0, and 1.2 in one million, respectively. We estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 12 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Utilizing ASFs is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA. Results without ASFs are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis.

An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 33 The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City should prepare an EIR with an 33 “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 15 HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Energy
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Energy Impacts
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F:
“The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include:
(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
(2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.”34
However, the IS/MND fails to discuss the Project’s potential energy impacts or how the Project would avoid and reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Instead, the IS/MND simply concludes that Project compliance with Title 24 standards would result in less-thansignificant energy impacts. Specifically, the IS/MND states:
“The Title 24, Building Standards Code, California Energy Code and California Green Building standards would be applicable to the project. Adherence to Title 24 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant level. As a result, the impact will be less than significant” (p. 44).

Furthermore, the IS/MND goes on to state:
“Title 24 now requires that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant‐emitting finish materials. The 2016 version of the standards became effective as of January 1, 2017. The proposed project will conform to all pertinent energy conservation requirements. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant” (p. 45).
34 “APPENDIX F: ENERGY CONSERVATION.” CEQA Guidelines Appendices, 2016, available at:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines_Appendix_F.pdf, p. 276.
16 However, noting compliance with the Title 24 standards does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. According to Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, the court ruled:
“With respect to the analysis of operational and construction energy use of the project, the court found that the City of Woodland’s reliance on mitigation measures that required compliance with title 24 and other California green building codes did not meet the requirements of appendix F” (emphasis added).35
As demonstrated above, simply complying with Title 24 standards does not meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. As such, the Project’s energy analysis is insufficient and the IS/MND’s lessthan-significant impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.36 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all dieselfueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled. • Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. 35 “Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256.” COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1805/Ukiah%20Citizens%20for%20Safety%20First%20v.%20City%20of%20Ukiah %20(1st%20Dist.%202016)%20248%20Cal.App.4th%20256.PD, p. 7. 36 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice. 17 • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.
18 • Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARBapproved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or 19 otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
11401 Greenstone Ave
South Coast Air Basin, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comments regarding cold storage, land use types and sizes, and parking.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding proposed construction schedule.

Demolition - No demolition included, as IS/MND fails to provide square footage of existing buildings to be removed; see SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Grading - See SWAPE comment regarding excavation.

Trips and VMT -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.42 1000sqft 0.12 5,421.00 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 139.01 1000sqft 3.19 139,013.00 0 Parking Lot 221.00 Space 1.99 88,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 86.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Attachment A

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 45.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,420.00 5,421.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 139,010.00 139,013.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.8316 1.3419 1.4434 2.9700e0030.2021 0.0629 0.2651 0.0861 0.0588 0.1448 0.0000 265.4688 265.4688 0.0514 7.6400e003269.0294 Maximum 0.8316 1.3419 1.4434 2.9700e0030.2021 0.0629 0.2651 0.0861 0.0588 0.1448 0.0000 265.4688 265.4688 0.0514 7.6400e003269.0294 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.8316 1.3419 1.4434 2.9700e0030.2021 0.0629 0.2651 0.0861 0.0588 0.1448 0.0000 265.4686 265.4686 0.0514 7.6400e003269.0292 Maximum 0.8316 1.3419 1.4434 2.9700e0030.2021 0.0629 0.2651 0.0861 0.0588 0.1448 0.0000 265.4686 265.4686 0.0514 7.6400e003269.0292 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.8038 0.8038
2 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.5653 0.5653
3 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.8621 0.8621
Highest 0.8621 0.8621

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5962 4.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Energy 1.0700e0039.6900e0038.1400e0036.0000e0057.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0040.0000 440.0109 440.0109 0.0365 4.5900e003442.2891 Mobile 0.2067 0.2984 2.3170 5.1800e0030.5239 4.4200e0030.5283 0.1398 4.1200e0030.1439 0.0000 479.3492 479.3492 0.0299 0.0210 486.3511 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 27.5479 0.0000 27.5479 1.6280 0.0000 68.2488 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.5041 77.6200 88.1241 1.0854 0.0263 123.0877 Total 0.8040 0.3081 2.3299 5.2400e0030.5239 5.1800e0030.5291 0.1398 4.8800e0030.1447 38.0520 996.9891 1,035.041 1 2.7798 0.0519 1,119.986
2 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5962 4.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Energy 1.0700e0039.6900e0038.1400e0036.0000e0057.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0040.0000 440.0109 440.0109 0.0365 4.5900e003442.2891 Mobile 0.2067 0.2984 2.3170 5.1800e0030.5239 4.4200e0030.5283 0.1398 4.1200e0030.1439 0.0000 479.3492 479.3492 0.0299 0.0210 486.3511 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 27.5479 0.0000 27.5479 1.6280 0.0000 68.2488 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.5041 77.6200 88.1241 1.0854 0.0263 123.0877 Total 0.8040 0.3081 2.3299 5.2400e0030.5239 5.1800e0030.5291 0.1398 4.8800e0030.1447 38.0520 996.9891 1,035.041 1 2.7798 0.0519 1,119.986
2 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2022 1/16/2022 5 10 2 Grading Grading 1/16/2022 1/30/2022 5 10
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/30/2022 5/30/2022 5 86 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 5/30/2022 7/31/2022 5 45
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/31/2022 9/11/2022 5 30 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 216,651; Non-Residential Outdoor: 72,217; Striped Parking Area: 5,304 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 1.99
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0985 0.0000 0.0985 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0048.0600e0038.0600e0037.4200e0037.4200e0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0040.0985 8.0600e0030.1065 0.0505 7.4200e0030.0580 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 413.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 97.00 38.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 8.9000e0040.0350 7.9500e0031.3000e0043.5500e0032.6000e0043.8200e0039.8000e0042.5000e0041.2300e0030.0000 12.5826 12.5826 7.4000e0042.0000e00313.1971 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e0042.4000e0043.1800e0031.0000e0059.9000e0041.0000e0059.9000e0042.6000e0041.0000e0052.7000e0040.0000 0.7983 0.7983 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.8053 Total 1.1900e0030.0352 0.0111 1.4000e0044.5400e0032.7000e0044.8100e0031.2400e0032.6000e0041.5000e0030.0000 13.3809 13.3809 7.6000e0042.0200e00314.0024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0985 0.0000 0.0985 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0048.0600e0038.0600e0037.4200e0037.4200e0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0040.0985 8.0600e0030.1065 0.0505 7.4200e0030.0580 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 8.9000e0040.0350 7.9500e0031.3000e0043.5500e0032.6000e0043.8200e0039.8000e0042.5000e0041.2300e0030.0000 12.5826 12.5826 7.4000e0042.0000e00313.1971 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e0042.4000e0043.1800e0031.0000e0059.9000e0041.0000e0059.9000e0042.6000e0041.0000e0052.7000e0040.0000 0.7983 0.7983 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.8053 Total 1.1900e0030.0352 0.0111 1.4000e0044.5400e0032.7000e0044.8100e0031.2400e0032.6000e0041.5000e0030.0000 13.3809 13.3809 7.6000e0042.0200e00314.0024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0354 0.0000 0.0354 0.0171 0.0000 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.7400e0030.1043 0.0764 1.5000e0044.7000e0034.7000e0034.3300e0034.3300e0030.0000 13.0274 13.0274 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1327 Total 9.7400e0030.1043 0.0764 1.5000e0040.0354 4.7000e0030.0401 0.0171 4.3300e0030.0215 0.0000 13.0274 13.0274 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1327 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e0042.0000e0042.6500e0031.0000e0058.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6653 0.6653 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6711 Total 2.5000e0042.0000e0042.6500e0031.0000e0058.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6653 0.6653 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6711 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0354 0.0000 0.0354 0.0171 0.0000 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.7400e0030.1043 0.0764 1.5000e0044.7000e0034.7000e0034.3300e0034.3300e0030.0000 13.0274 13.0274 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1327 Total 9.7400e0030.1043 0.0764 1.5000e0040.0354 4.7000e0030.0401 0.0171 4.3300e0030.0215 0.0000 13.0274 13.0274 4.2100e0030.0000 13.1327 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e0042.0000e0042.6500e0031.0000e0058.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6653 0.6653 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6711 Total 2.5000e0042.0000e0042.6500e0031.0000e0058.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6653 0.6653 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6711 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0734 0.6715 0.7036 1.1600e0030.0348 0.0348 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 99.6419 99.6419 0.0239 0.0000 100.2386 Total 0.0734 0.6715 0.7036 1.1600e0030.0348 0.0348 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 99.6419 99.6419 0.0239 0.0000 100.2386 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9600e0030.0809 0.0262 3.1000e0040.0103 7.9000e0040.0111 2.9700e0037.5000e0043.7300e0030.0000 30.6220 30.6220 1.1200e0034.4500e00331.9764 Worker 0.0140 0.0113 0.1476 4.0000e0040.0458 2.8000e0040.0460 0.0122 2.6000e0040.0124 0.0000 36.9981 36.9981 1.0300e0031.0000e00337.3209 Total 0.0169 0.0922 0.1738 7.1000e0040.0561 1.0700e0030.0571 0.0151 1.0100e0030.0161 0.0000 67.6201 67.6201 2.1500e0035.4500e00369.2973 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0734 0.6715 0.7036 1.1600e0030.0348 0.0348 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 99.6417 99.6417 0.0239 0.0000 100.2385 Total 0.0734 0.6715 0.7036 1.1600e0030.0348 0.0348 0.0327 0.0327 0.0000 99.6417 99.6417 0.0239 0.0000 100.2385 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9600e0030.0809 0.0262 3.1000e0040.0103 7.9000e0040.0111 2.9700e0037.5000e0043.7300e0030.0000 30.6220 30.6220 1.1200e0034.4500e00331.9764 Worker 0.0140 0.0113 0.1476 4.0000e0040.0458 2.8000e0040.0460 0.0122 2.6000e0040.0124 0.0000 36.9981 36.9981 1.0300e0031.0000e00337.3209 Total 0.0169 0.0922 0.1738 7.1000e0040.0561 1.0700e0030.0571 0.0151 1.0100e0030.0161 0.0000 67.6201 67.6201 2.1500e0035.4500e00369.2973 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0248 0.2503 0.3281 5.1000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118 0.0000 45.0620 45.0620 0.0146 0.0000 45.4264 Paving 2.6100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0274 0.2503 0.3281 5.1000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118 0.0000 45.0620 45.0620 0.0146 0.0000 45.4264 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1300e0039.1000e0040.0119 3.0000e0053.7000e0032.0000e0053.7300e0039.8000e0042.0000e0051.0000e0030.0000 2.9937 2.9937 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0199 Total 1.1300e0039.1000e0040.0119 3.0000e0053.7000e0032.0000e0053.7300e0039.8000e0042.0000e0051.0000e0030.0000 2.9937 2.9937 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0199 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0248 0.2503 0.3281 5.1000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118 0.0000 45.0620 45.0620 0.0146 0.0000 45.4263 Paving 2.6100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0274 0.2503 0.3281 5.1000e0040.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118 0.0000 45.0620 45.0620 0.0146 0.0000 45.4263 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1300e0039.1000e0040.0119 3.0000e0053.7000e0032.0000e0053.7300e0039.8000e0042.0000e0051.0000e0030.0000 2.9937 2.9937 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0199 Total 1.1300e0039.1000e0040.0119 3.0000e0053.7000e0032.0000e0053.7300e0039.8000e0042.0000e0051.0000e0030.0000 2.9937 2.9937 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0199 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.0700e0030.0211 0.0272 4.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0030.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e0040.0000 3.8361 Total 0.6848 0.0211 0.0272 4.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0030.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e0040.0000 3.8361 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.5000e0047.7000e0040.0101 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5280 2.5280 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.5501 Total 9.5000e0047.7000e0040.0101 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5280 2.5280 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.5501 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6817 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.0700e0030.0211 0.0272 4.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0030.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e0040.0000 3.8361 Total 0.6848 0.0211 0.0272 4.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0031.2300e0030.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.5000e0040.0000 3.8361 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.5000e0047.7000e0040.0101 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5280 2.5280 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.5501 Total 9.5000e0047.7000e0040.0101 3.0000e0053.1300e0032.0000e0053.1500e0038.3000e0042.0000e0058.5000e0040.0000 2.5280 2.5280 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.5501 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2067 0.2984 2.3170 5.1800e0030.5239 4.4200e0030.5283 0.1398 4.1200e0030.1439 0.0000 479.3492 479.3492 0.0299 0.0210 486.3511 Unmitigated 0.2067 0.2984 2.3170 5.1800e0030.5239 4.4200e0030.5283 0.1398 4.1200e0030.1439 0.0000 479.3492 479.3492 0.0299 0.0210 486.3511

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 52.79 11.98 3.79 128,732 128,732 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 294.70 294.70 294.70 1,263,006 1,263,006 Total 347.49 306.68 298.50 1,391,738 1,391,738
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845 Parking Lot 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 429.4617 429.4617 0.0363 4.3900e003431.6772 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 429.4617 429.4617 0.0363 4.3900e003431.6772 NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.0700e0039.6900e0038.1400e0036.0000e0057.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0040.0000 10.5492 10.5492 2.0000e0041.9000e00410.6119 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.0700e0039.6900e0038.1400e0036.0000e0057.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0040.0000 10.5492 10.5492 2.0000e0041.9000e00410.6119

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
55890.5 3.0000e0042.7400e0032.3000e0032.0000e0052.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.9825 2.9825 6.0000e0055.0000e0053.0003 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
141793 7.6000e0046.9500e0035.8400e0034.0000e0055.3000e0045.3000e0045.3000e0045.3000e0040.0000 7.5666 7.5666 1.5000e0041.4000e0047.6116 Total 1.0600e0039.6900e0038.1400e0036.0000e0057.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0040.0000 10.5492 10.5492 2.1000e0041.9000e00410.6118 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
55890.5 3.0000e0042.7400e0032.3000e0032.0000e0052.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.9825 2.9825 6.0000e0055.0000e0053.0003 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
141793 7.6000e0046.9500e0035.8400e0034.0000e0055.3000e0045.3000e0045.3000e0045.3000e0040.0000 7.5666 7.5666 1.5000e0041.4000e0047.6116 Total 1.0600e0039.6900e0038.1400e0036.0000e0057.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0047.4000e0040.0000 10.5492 10.5492 2.1000e0041.9000e00410.6118 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
67762.5 12.0174 1.0100e0031.2000e00412.0794
Parking Lot 30940 5.4871 4.6000e0046.0000e0055.5154
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.32291e
+006
411.9573 0.0348 4.2100e003414.0825
Total 429.4617 0.0362 4.3900e003431.6772
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
67762.5 12.0174 1.0100e0031.2000e00412.0794
Parking Lot 30940 5.4871 4.6000e0046.0000e0055.5154
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.32291e
+006
411.9573 0.0348 4.2100e003414.0825
Total 429.4617 0.0362 4.3900e003431.6772
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.5962 4.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Unmitigated 0.5962 4.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0682 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.3000e0044.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Total 0.5962 4.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0682 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5276 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.3000e0044.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Total 0.5962 4.0000e0054.6700e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 9.0700e0039.0700e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.6700e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 88.1241 1.0854 0.0263 123.0877
Unmitigated 88.1241 1.0854 0.0263 123.0877

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.963317 /

0.59042

3.6934 0.0317 7.8000e0044.7165
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

32.1461 /
0 84.4307 1.0538 0.0255 118.3711
Total 88.1241 1.0854 0.0263 123.0877
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.963317 /

0.59042

3.6934 0.0317 7.8000e0044.7165
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

32.1461 /
0 84.4307 1.0538 0.0255 118.3711
Total 88.1241 1.0854 0.0263 123.0877
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 27.5479 1.6280 0.0000 68.2488
Unmitigated 27.5479 1.6280 0.0000 68.2488
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

5.04 1.0231 0.0605 0.0000 2.5346
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
130.67 26.5248 1.5676 0.0000 65.7141
Total 27.5479 1.6280 0.0000 68.2488
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

5.04 1.0231 0.0605 0.0000 2.5346
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
130.67 26.5248 1.5676 0.0000 65.7141
Total 27.5479 1.6280 0.0000 68.2488
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 30 Date: 8/3/2021 11:47 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 11401 Greenstone Ave
South Coast Air Basin, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comments regarding cold storage, land use types and sizes, and parking.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding proposed construction schedule.

Demolition - No demolition included, as IS/MND fails to provide square footage of existing buildings to be removed; see SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Grading - See SWAPE comment regarding excavation.

Trips and VMT -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.42 1000sqft 0.12 5,421.00 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 139.01 1000sqft 3.19 139,013.00 0 Parking Lot 221.00 Space 1.99 88,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 86.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 45.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,420.00 5,421.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 139,010.00 139,013.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 46.9888 60.6571 37.7990 0.0962 27.8679 2.6086 30.4765 13.8286 2.4018 16.2304 0.0000 9,668.744 3 9,668.744
3 2.2940 0.4488 9,859.843
6 Maximum 46.9888 60.6571 37.7990 0.0962 27.8679 2.6086 30.4765 13.8286 2.4018 16.2304 0.0000 9,668.744 3 9,668.744
3 2.2940 0.4488 9,859.843
6 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 46.9888 60.6571 37.7990 0.0962 27.8679 2.6086 30.4765 13.8286 2.4018 16.2304 0.0000 9,668.744 3 9,668.744
3 2.2940 0.4488 9,859.843
6 Maximum 46.9888 60.6571 37.7990 0.0962 27.8679 2.6086 30.4765 13.8286 2.4018 16.2304 0.0000 9,668.744 3 9,668.744
3 2.2940 0.4488 9,859.843
6 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Energy 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962 Mobile 1.2208 1.5500 13.4960 0.0304 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 3,099.982 4 3,099.982
4 0.1829 0.1250 3,141.792
3 Total 4.4948 1.6034 13.5780 0.0307 3.0194 0.0292 3.0486 0.8046 0.0275 0.8321 3,163.780 0 3,163.780
0 0.1843 0.1261 3,205.973
8 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Energy 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962 Mobile 1.2208 1.5500 13.4960 0.0304 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 3,099.982 4 3,099.982
4 0.1829 0.1250 3,141.792
3 Total 4.4948 1.6034 13.5780 0.0307 3.0194 0.0292 3.0486 0.8046 0.0275 0.8321 3,163.780 0 3,163.780
0 0.1843 0.1261 3,205.973
8 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2022 1/16/2022 5 10 2 Grading Grading 1/16/2022 1/30/2022 5 10
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/30/2022 5/30/2022 5 86 4 Paving Paving 5/30/2022 7/31/2022 5 45
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/31/2022 9/11/2022 5 30 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 216,651; Non-Residential Outdoor: 72,217; Striped Parking Area: 5,304 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 1.99
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 413.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 97.00 38.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6943 0.0000 19.6943 10.1081 0.0000 10.1081 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6943 1.6126 21.3069 10.1081 1.4836 11.5917 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1806 6.6390 1.5782 0.0252 0.7221 0.0529 0.7751 0.1979 0.0506 0.2486 2,773.658 4 2,773.658
4 0.1642 0.4408 2,909.114
1 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0614 0.0434 0.6820 1.8200e0030.2012 1.2000e0030.2024 0.0534 1.1100e0030.0545 183.8060 183.8060 4.8100e0034.3900e003185.2340 Total 0.2420 6.6824 2.2602 0.0270 0.9233 0.0541 0.9775 0.2513 0.0518 0.3030 2,957.464 4 2,957.464
4 0.1690 0.4452 3,094.348
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6943 0.0000 19.6943 10.1081 0.0000 10.1081 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6943 1.6126 21.3069 10.1081 1.4836 11.5917 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1806 6.6390 1.5782 0.0252 0.7221 0.0529 0.7751 0.1979 0.0506 0.2486 2,773.658 4 2,773.658
4 0.1642 0.4408 2,909.114
1 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0614 0.0434 0.6820 1.8200e0030.2012 1.2000e0030.2024 0.0534 1.1100e0030.0545 183.8060 183.8060 4.8100e0034.3900e003185.2340 Total 0.2420 6.6824 2.2602 0.0270 0.9233 0.0541 0.9775 0.2513 0.0518 0.3030 2,957.464 4 2,957.464
4 0.1690 0.4452 3,094.348
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 7.0826 0.9409 8.0234 3.4247 0.8656 4.2903 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Total 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 7.0826 0.9409 8.0234 3.4247 0.8656 4.2903 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Total 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0694 1.7930 0.5997 7.2800e0030.2433 0.0183 0.2616 0.0700 0.0175 0.0875 784.8776 784.8776 0.0289 0.1140 819.5670 Worker 0.3309 0.2336 3.6750 9.8000e0031.0842 6.4900e0031.0907 0.2875 5.9800e0030.2935 990.5103 990.5103 0.0259 0.0237 998.2052 Total 0.4003 2.0267 4.2748 0.0171 1.3275 0.0248 1.3523 0.3576 0.0235 0.3810 1,775.387 8 1,775.387
8 0.0548 0.1376 1,817.772
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0694 1.7930 0.5997 7.2800e0030.2433 0.0183 0.2616 0.0700 0.0175 0.0875 784.8776 784.8776 0.0289 0.1140 819.5670 Worker 0.3309 0.2336 3.6750 9.8000e0031.0842 6.4900e0031.0907 0.2875 5.9800e0030.2935 990.5103 990.5103 0.0259 0.0237 998.2052 Total 0.4003 2.0267 4.2748 0.0171 1.3275 0.0248 1.3523 0.3576 0.0235 0.3810 1,775.387 8 1,775.387
8 0.0548 0.1376 1,817.772
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.1159 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2187 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Total 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.1159 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2187 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Total 0.0512 0.0361 0.5683 1.5200e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 153.1717 153.1717 4.0100e0033.6600e003154.3616 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 45.4496 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 45.6541 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0648 0.0458 0.7199 1.9200e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 194.0175 194.0175 5.0800e0034.6300e003195.5247 Total 0.0648 0.0458 0.7199 1.9200e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 194.0175 194.0175 5.0800e0034.6300e003195.5247 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 45.4496 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 45.6541 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0648 0.0458 0.7199 1.9200e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 194.0175 194.0175 5.0800e0034.6300e003195.5247 Total 0.0648 0.0458 0.7199 1.9200e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 194.0175 194.0175 5.0800e0034.6300e003195.5247 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.2208 1.5500 13.4960 0.0304 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 3,099.982 4 3,099.982
4 0.1829 0.1250 3,141.792
3 Unmitigated 1.2208 1.5500 13.4960 0.0304 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 3,099.982 4 3,099.982
4 0.1829 0.1250 3,141.792
3 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 52.79 11.98 3.79 128,732 128,732 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 294.70 294.70 294.70 1,263,006 1,263,006 Total 347.49 306.68 298.50 1,391,738 1,391,738
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845 Parking Lot 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building
153.125 1.6500e0030.0150 0.0126 9.0000e0051.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e00318.0147 18.0147 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.1217 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
388.475 4.1900e0030.0381 0.0320 2.3000e0042.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e00345.7029 45.7029 8.8000e0048.4000e00445.9745 Total 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2300e0031.1700e00364.0962 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building

0.153125 1.6500e0030.0150 0.0126 9.0000e0051.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e00318.0147 18.0147 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.1217 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.388475 4.1900e0030.0381 0.0320 2.3000e0042.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e00345.7029 45.7029 8.8000e0048.4000e00445.9745 Total 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2300e0031.1700e00364.0962 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Unmitigated 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.8911 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.4800e0033.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Total 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.8911 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.4800e0033.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Total 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:49 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 11401 Greenstone Ave
South Coast Air Basin, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comments regarding cold storage, land use types and sizes, and parking.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding proposed construction schedule.

Demolition - No demolition included, as IS/MND fails to provide square footage of existing buildings to be removed; see SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Grading - See SWAPE comment regarding excavation.

Trips and VMT -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.42 1000sqft 0.12 5,421.00 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 139.01 1000sqft 3.19 139,013.00 0 Parking Lot 221.00 Space 1.99 88,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 86.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 45.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 3,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,420.00 5,421.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 139,010.00 139,013.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 46.9959 60.9403 37.7150 0.0960 27.8679 2.6087 30.4766 13.8286 2.4019 16.2305 0.0000 9,650.701 0 9,650.701
0 2.2939 0.4495 9,841.988
7 Maximum 46.9959 60.9403 37.7150 0.0960 27.8679 2.6087 30.4766 13.8286 2.4019 16.2305 0.0000 9,650.701 0 9,650.701
0 2.2939 0.4495 9,841.988
7 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 46.9959 60.9403 37.7150 0.0960 27.8679 2.6087 30.4766 13.8286 2.4019 16.2305 0.0000 9,650.701 0 9,650.701
0 2.2939 0.4495 9,841.988
7 Maximum 46.9959 60.9403 37.7150 0.0960 27.8679 2.6087 30.4766 13.8286 2.4019 16.2305 0.0000 9,650.701 0 9,650.701
0 2.2939 0.4495 9,841.988
7 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Energy 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962 Mobile 1.1925 1.6617 12.9600 0.0290 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 2,960.038 8 2,960.038
8 0.1872 0.1300 3,003.467
7 Total 4.4665 1.7151 13.0420 0.0294 3.0194 0.0292 3.0486 0.8046 0.0275 0.8321 3,023.836 3 3,023.836
3 0.1886 0.1312 3,067.649
2 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Energy 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962 Mobile 1.1925 1.6617 12.9600 0.0290 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 2,960.038 8 2,960.038
8 0.1872 0.1300 3,003.467
7 Total 4.4665 1.7151 13.0420 0.0294 3.0194 0.0292 3.0486 0.8046 0.0275 0.8321 3,023.836 3 3,023.836
3 0.1886 0.1312 3,067.649
2 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2022 1/16/2022 5 10 2 Grading Grading 1/16/2022 1/30/2022 5 10
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/30/2022 5/30/2022 5 86 4 Paving Paving 5/30/2022 7/31/2022 5 45
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/31/2022 9/11/2022 5 30 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 216,651; Non-Residential Outdoor: 72,217; Striped Parking Area: 5,304 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 1.99
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 413.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 97.00 38.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6943 0.0000 19.6943 10.1081 0.0000 10.1081 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6943 1.6126 21.3069 10.1081 1.4836 11.5917 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1761 6.9144 1.6061 0.0252 0.7221 0.0530 0.7752 0.1979 0.0507 0.2487 2,774.435 5 2,774.435
5 0.1639 0.4409 2,909.925
3 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0652 0.0476 0.6210 1.7200e0030.2012 1.2000e0030.2024 0.0534 1.1100e0030.0545 173.5403 173.5403 4.8700e0034.6700e003175.0525 Total 0.2413 6.9620 2.2271 0.0269 0.9233 0.0542 0.9776 0.2513 0.0519 0.3031 2,947.975 8 2,947.975
8 0.1688 0.4456 3,084.977
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6943 0.0000 19.6943 10.1081 0.0000 10.1081 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6943 1.6126 21.3069 10.1081 1.4836 11.5917 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.1761 6.9144 1.6061 0.0252 0.7221 0.0530 0.7752 0.1979 0.0507 0.2487 2,774.435 5 2,774.435
5 0.1639 0.4409 2,909.925
3 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0652 0.0476 0.6210 1.7200e0030.2012 1.2000e0030.2024 0.0534 1.1100e0030.0545 173.5403 173.5403 4.8700e0034.6700e003175.0525 Total 0.2413 6.9620 2.2271 0.0269 0.9233 0.0542 0.9776 0.2513 0.0519 0.3031 2,947.975 8 2,947.975
8 0.1688 0.4456 3,084.977
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 7.0826 0.9409 8.0234 3.4247 0.8656 4.2903 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Total 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 7.0826 0.9409 8.0234 3.4247 0.8656 4.2903 0.0000 2,872.046 4 2,872.046
4 0.9289 2,895.268
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Total 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0684 1.8673 0.6211 7.2800e0030.2433 0.0183 0.2616 0.0700 0.0175 0.0876 785.1622 785.1622 0.0288 0.1141 819.8874 Worker 0.3512 0.2564 3.3463 9.2500e0031.0842 6.4900e0031.0907 0.2875 5.9800e0030.2935 935.1893 935.1893 0.0263 0.0251 943.3384 Total 0.4196 2.1237 3.9674 0.0165 1.3275 0.0248 1.3523 0.3576 0.0235 0.3811 1,720.351 5 1,720.351
5 0.0551 0.1393 1,763.225
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0684 1.8673 0.6211 7.2800e0030.2433 0.0183 0.2616 0.0700 0.0175 0.0876 785.1622 785.1622 0.0288 0.1141 819.8874 Worker 0.3512 0.2564 3.3463 9.2500e0031.0842 6.4900e0031.0907 0.2875 5.9800e0030.2935 935.1893 935.1893 0.0263 0.0251 943.3384 Total 0.4196 2.1237 3.9674 0.0165 1.3275 0.0248 1.3523 0.3576 0.0235 0.3811 1,720.351 5 1,720.351
5 0.0551 0.1393 1,763.225
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.1159 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2187 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Total 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1028 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Paving 0.1159 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2187 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 3 2,207.660
3 0.7140 2,225.510
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Total 0.0543 0.0396 0.5175 1.4300e0030.1677 1.0000e0030.1687 0.0445 9.2000e0040.0454 144.6169 144.6169 4.0600e0033.8900e003145.8771 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 45.4496 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 45.6541 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0688 0.0502 0.6555 1.8100e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 183.1814 183.1814 5.1400e0034.9200e003184.7776 Total 0.0688 0.0502 0.6555 1.8100e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 183.1814 183.1814 5.1400e0034.9200e003184.7776 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 45.4496 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 45.6541 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0688 0.0502 0.6555 1.8100e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 183.1814 183.1814 5.1400e0034.9200e003184.7776 Total 0.0688 0.0502 0.6555 1.8100e0030.2124 1.2700e0030.2137 0.0563 1.1700e0030.0575 183.1814 183.1814 5.1400e0034.9200e003184.7776 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.1925 1.6617 12.9600 0.0290 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 2,960.038 8 2,960.038
8 0.1872 0.1300 3,003.467
7 Unmitigated 1.1925 1.6617 12.9600 0.0290 3.0194 0.0250 3.0444 0.8046 0.0234 0.8280 2,960.038 8 2,960.038
8 0.1872 0.1300 3,003.467
7 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 52.79 11.98 3.79 128,732 128,732 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 294.70 294.70 294.70 1,263,006 1,263,006 Total 347.49 306.68 298.50 1,391,738 1,391,738
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845 Parking Lot 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.544368 0.059978 0.184244 0.130791 0.023854 0.006227 0.012011 0.008603 0.000829 0.000521 0.023988 0.000741 0.003845

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e0034.0400e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2200e0031.1700e00364.0962

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building
153.125 1.6500e0030.0150 0.0126 9.0000e0051.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e00318.0147 18.0147 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.1217 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
388.475 4.1900e0030.0381 0.0320 2.3000e0042.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e00345.7029 45.7029 8.8000e0048.4000e00445.9745 Total 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2300e0031.1700e00364.0962 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building

0.153125 1.6500e0030.0150 0.0126 9.0000e0051.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e0031.1400e00318.0147 18.0147 3.5000e0043.3000e00418.1217 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.388475 4.1900e0030.0381 0.0320 2.3000e0042.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e0032.8900e00345.7029 45.7029 8.8000e0048.4000e00445.9745 Total 5.8400e0030.0531 0.0446 3.2000e0044.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e0034.0300e00363.7176 63.7176 1.2300e0031.1700e00364.0962 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Unmitigated 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.8911 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.4800e0033.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Total 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3736 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.8911 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.4800e0033.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Total 3.2681 3.4000e0040.0374 0.0000 1.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0800 0.0800 2.1000e0040.0853 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 23 Date: 8/3/2021 11:51 AM 11401 Greenstone Ave - South Coast Air Basin, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0629 Total DPM (lbs) 87.19835616 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.00518 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.344657534 Total DPM (g) 39553.17436 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.028383562 Construction Duration (days) 253 Total Construction Days 253 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000149014 Total DPM (lbs) 87.19835616 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001809452 Release Height (meters) 3 Total DPM (g) 39553.17436 Release Height (meters) 3 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Start Date 1/1/2022 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Max Horizontal (meters) 266.0 End Date 9/11/2022 Max Horizontal (meters) 266.0 Min Horizontal (meters) 101.0 Construction Days 253 Min Horizontal (meters) 101.0 Total Acreage 6.63872731 Total Acreage 6.63872731 Setting City of Santa Fe Springs Setting City of Santa Fe Springs Population 17,810
Population 17,810
Start Date 1/1/2022 Total DPM (lbs) 10.36
End Date 9/11/2022
Total Construction Days 253
Total Years of Operation 29.31
Total Pounds of DPM
Construction Operation
2022 Total Emission Rate
Attachment B
Start date and time  08/03/21 12:24:49
AERSCREEN 16216
Greenstone Construction
Greenstone Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ METRIC              ENGLISH
** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate:    0.181E‐02 g/s 0.144E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length:  266.00 meters 872.70 feet
Area Source Width:   101.00 meters 331.36 feet
Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 17810
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment C
No Building Downwash Parameters

** TERRAIN DATA **

No Terrain Elevations

Source Base Elevation:   0.0 meters        0.0  feet

Probe distance:   5000. meters       16404. feet

No flagpole receptors

No discrete receptors used

** FUMIGATION DATA **

No fumigation requested

** METEOROLOGY DATA **

Min/Max Temperature:  250.0 / 310.0 K   ‐9.7 /  98.3 Deg F

Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s

Anemometer Height:   10.000 meters

Dominant Surface Profile: Urban

Dominant Climate Type:    Average Moisture

Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted

DEBUG OPTION ON

AERSCREEN output file:

Greenstone_Construction.out

*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin

No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run

**************************************************

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET

Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture

Season             Albedo     Bo       zo

Winter              0.35     1.50     1.000

Spring              0.14     1.00     1.000

Summer              0.16     2.00     1.000

Autumn              0.18     2.00     1.000

Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl

Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe

FLOWSECTOR   started 08/03/21 12:26:38

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP
********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Spring

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP
********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Summer

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP
********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Autumn

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

FLOWSECTOR   ended 08/03/21 12:26:49

REFINE       started 08/03/21 12:26:49

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

REFINE       ended 08/03/21 12:26:51

**********************************************

AERSCREEN Finished Successfully

But with Warnings

Check log file for details

***********************************************

Ending date and time  08/03/21 12:26:53

file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT

0.21031E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22552E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23897E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25045E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26065E+01 100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26906E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.27530E+01 134.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22982E+01 150.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17632E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14428E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12400E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10814E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.95518E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.85206E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76692E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.69524E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63475E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58252E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53768E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49798E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46352E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43285E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40558E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38121E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35922E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33918E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32109E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30470E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28979E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27605E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26329E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25149E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24060E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23054E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22120E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21253E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20444E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19679E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18964E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18294E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17665E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17074E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16516E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15986E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15486E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15012E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14564E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14140E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13735E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13347E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12978E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12626E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12291E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11971E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11666E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11374E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11095E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10827E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10571E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10325E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10089E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98625E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.96448E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.94353E-01 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.92336E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90384E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.88504E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.86691E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84942E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83254E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81624E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.80038E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78505E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77023E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.75589E-01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.74201E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72857E-01 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.71555E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70293E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.69069E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68576E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67405E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66267E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65163E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64090E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63048E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62034E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61048E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60089E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59156E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58248E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57364E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56502E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55663E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54845E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54048E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53271E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52512E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51773E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51051E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50346E-01 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49658E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48986E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48330E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47689E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47062E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46450E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45851E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45266E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44693E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44133E-01 2725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43584E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43048E-01 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42523E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42009E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41505E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41012E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40529E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40056E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39592E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39137E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38692E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38255E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37826E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37406E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36994E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36589E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36193E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35803E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35421E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35046E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34678E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34316E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33961E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33612E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33269E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32933E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32602E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32277E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31957E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31643E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31334E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31030E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30732E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30438E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30150E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29865E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29586E-01 3650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29311E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29040E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28774E-01 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28512E-01 3750.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28254E-01 3775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28000E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27750E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27504E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27261E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27023E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26788E-01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26556E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26328E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26103E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25881E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25663E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25448E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25236E-01 4100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25027E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24821E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24618E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24418E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24220E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24026E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23834E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23644E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23458E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23273E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23092E-01 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22913E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22736E-01 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22561E-01 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22389E-01 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22219E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22051E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21886E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21722E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21561E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21402E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21245E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:37 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21090E-01 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20936E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20785E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20636E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20488E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20342E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20198E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20056E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19915E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19777E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19639E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19504E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19393E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10010612 7.12 0.119 0.300 0.020 130. 95. -20.5

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 280.0 2.0

0.19325E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10010612 7.12 0.119 0.300 0.020 130. 95. -20.5

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 280.0 2.0

Start date and time  07/30/21 19:32:46

AERSCREEN 16216

Greenstone_Operation

Greenstone_Operation

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

METRIC              ENGLISH

** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Emission Rate:    0.150E‐03 g/s         0.119E‐02 lb/hr

Area Height:           3.00 meters           9.84 feet

Area Source Length:  266.00 meters         872.70 feet

Area Source Width:   101.00 meters         331.36 feet

Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters           4.92 feet

Model Mode:           URBAN

Population:           17810

Dist to Ambient Air:           1.0 meters             3. feet

** BUILDING DATA **

No Building Downwash Parameters

** TERRAIN DATA **

No Terrain Elevations

Source Base Elevation:   0.0 meters        0.0  feet

Probe distance:   5000. meters       16404. feet

No flagpole receptors

No discrete receptors used

** FUMIGATION DATA **

No fumigation requested

** METEOROLOGY DATA **

Min/Max Temperature:  250.0 / 310.0 K   ‐9.7 /  98.3 Deg F

Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s

Anemometer Height:   10.000 meters

Dominant Surface Profile: Urban

Dominant Climate Type:    Average Moisture

Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted

DEBUG OPTION ON

AERSCREEN output file:

Greenstone_Operation.out

*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin

No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run

**************************************************

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET

Obtaining surface characteristics...

Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture

Season             Albedo     Bo       zo

Winter              0.35     1.50     1.000

Spring              0.14     1.00     1.000

Summer              0.16     2.00     1.000

Autumn              0.18     2.00     1.000

Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl

Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl

Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe

FLOWSECTOR   started 07/30/21 19:33:30

********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP
********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Spring

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP
********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Summer

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP
********************************************

Running AERMOD

Processing Autumn

Processing surface roughness sector  1

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

*****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

FLOWSECTOR   ended 07/30/21 19:34:01

REFINE       started 07/30/21 19:34:01

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

CO W320      36       URBOPT: Input Parameter May Be Out‐of‐Range for Parameter URB‐POP

REFINE       ended 07/30/21 19:34:04

**********************************************

AERSCREEN Finished Successfully

But with Warnings

Check log file for details

***********************************************

Ending date and time  07/30/21 19:34:11

file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT

0.17434E+00 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18694E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19809E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20761E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21606E+00 100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22304E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.22821E+00 134.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19051E+00 150.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14616E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11960E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10279E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.89646E-01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.79180E-01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70632E-01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63574E-01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57632E-01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52618E-01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48288E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44571E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41281E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38423E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35881E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33620E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31600E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29778E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28116E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26617E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25259E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24022E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22883E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21826E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20847E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19945E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19110E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18337E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17618E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16947E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16313E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15720E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.15165E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14644E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14154E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13691E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13252E-01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12837E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12445E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12073E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11721E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11386E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11064E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10758E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10466E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10189E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99235E-02 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.96703E-02 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.94283E-02 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91968E-02 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.89751E-02 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.87626E-02 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.85589E-02 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83634E-02 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.81756E-02 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.79951E-02 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78215E-02 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.76543E-02 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.74925E-02 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73366E-02 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.71863E-02 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.70413E-02 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.69014E-02 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67663E-02 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66348E-02 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65077E-02 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63849E-02 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.62660E-02 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.61509E-02 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60395E-02 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59315E-02 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.58269E-02 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.57255E-02 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56846E-02 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.55875E-02 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54933E-02 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.54017E-02 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53128E-02 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.52263E-02 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51423E-02 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50606E-02 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49811E-02 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49038E-02 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48285E-02 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47552E-02 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46838E-02 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46142E-02 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45464E-02 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44803E-02 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.44159E-02 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43530E-02 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42917E-02 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.42319E-02 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41735E-02 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41164E-02 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40607E-02 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40063E-02 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39532E-02 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39012E-02 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38505E-02 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38008E-02 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37523E-02 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37048E-02 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36584E-02 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36129E-02 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35685E-02 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35249E-02 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34823E-02 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34406E-02 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33997E-02 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33597E-02 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33204E-02 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32820E-02 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32443E-02 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32073E-02 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31711E-02 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31356E-02 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31008E-02 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30666E-02 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30331E-02 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30002E-02 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29679E-02 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29363E-02 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29051E-02 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28746E-02 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28446E-02 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.28152E-02 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27863E-02 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27579E-02 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27300E-02 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.27025E-02 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26756E-02 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26491E-02 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.26230E-02 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25975E-02 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25723E-02 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25475E-02 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25232E-02 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24992E-02 3600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24757E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24525E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24297E-02 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24073E-02 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23852E-02 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23635E-02 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23421E-02 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23211E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.23003E-02 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22799E-02 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22598E-02 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22400E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22206E-02 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.22013E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21824E-02 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21638E-02 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21454E-02 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21274E-02 4050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21095E-02 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20919E-02 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20746E-02 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20576E-02 4150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20407E-02 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20241E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.20078E-02 4225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19916E-02 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19757E-02 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19600E-02 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19445E-02 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19293E-02 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19142E-02 4375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18993E-02 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18847E-02 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18702E-02 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18559E-02 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18419E-02 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18280E-02 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18142E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18007E-02 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17873E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17741E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17611E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/Greenstone_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/3/2021 1:39:59 PM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17482E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17355E-02 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17230E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17106E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16983E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16863E-02 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16743E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16625E-02 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16509E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16394E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16280E-02 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16168E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16076E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10010612 7.12 0.119 0.300 0.020 130. 95. -20.5

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 280.0 2.0

0.16020E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10010612 7.12 0.119 0.300 0.020 130. 95. -20.5

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 280.0 2.0
1 2656 29th Street,
Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA
90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G.,* C.Hg**
Geologic and Hydrogeologic
Characterization, Investigation
and Remediation Strategies
Expert Testimony
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Professional Certifications:
*Professional Geologist
**Certified Hydrogeologist
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
Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Attachment D
2 Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. 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, developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions held include:

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

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to 3 hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending 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 exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities.
• Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor 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 inSouthern 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 gasstations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimonyby the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronologyof MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronologyof perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Seniorresearcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinkingwater 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.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an 4 operating school in LosAngeles that met strictregulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, an Orange County-based not-for-profit water-quality organization, 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, prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater.

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, 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 included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, andgroundwater. • Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratoryanalysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the SuperfundGroundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used 5 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, 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 contribution to the development of national guidance forthe 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.

Prepared geologic reports, conducted 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.

Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith 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, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources toprevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• 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 andOlympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexicoand advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
6 • 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 personalwatercraft 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 as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S.

Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers innegotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed fortimber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large 7 hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifer tests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, 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.
• Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California 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 PublicEnvironmental 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 andPublic 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).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National 8 GroundwaterAssociation.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin 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 Waterin 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 atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking WaterSupplies. 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. Invitedpresentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water.

Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater.

Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to AddressImpacts 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 9 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 andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

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

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 StorageTanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water 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 WatercraftUsage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S.

EPA SuperfundGroundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
10 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, Airand 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 Basesin 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.

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce ofPrevention... 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
525 Broadway Avenue, Suite 203
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Tel: (310) 795-2335
Fax: (310) 434-0011
Email: [email protected]
SWAPE 1 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment And Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on VOC 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 is the environmental chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological restoration.  His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing, petroleum, MtBE and fuel oxygenates, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi‐volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, and odor.  Significant projects performed by Dr. Rosenfeld include the following:

Litigation Support
Client: Nexsen Pruet, LLC (Charleston, South Carolina)
Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of chlorine were released.

Client: Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Serving as expert in catalyst release and refinery emissions cases against BP Texas City. One case settled regarding worker exposure, but ongoing litigation remains involving ~21,500 plaintiffs who have health claims and are seeking remediation from chemicals released from BP facility.

Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Attachment E

SWAPE 2 Rosenfeld CV
Serving as expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for ~600 individuals and ~280 properties in Carson, California, where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell.

Client: Brent Coon Law Firm (Cleveland, Ohio)
Served as expert calculating an environmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery in Hooven Ohio. Ran AERMOD to calculate cumulative dose.

Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Served as expert testifying on hydrocarbon exposure to a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by Chevron.

Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene.

Client: Lundy Davis (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as consulting expert on an oil field case representing the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted field work evaluating oil field contamination in Sulfur, Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips, but leased by Yellow Rock, a small oil firm.

Client: Cox Cox Filo (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Serving as testifying expert on multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006, resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of workers and residents. Prepared air model and calculated dose. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms.

Client: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (San Francisco, California) Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in Santa Maria, California. Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting in diminished property value.

Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas, Texas) & Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, NY) Serving as consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi District Litigation (MDL) in New York. Consolidated ground water data, created maps for test cases, constructed damage model, evaluated taste and odor threshold levels.

Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C. (Los Angeles, California) Served as testifying expert representing individuals who rented homes on the Inglewood Oil Field in California.

Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocarbon contaminated water and air, and experienced health harms associated with the petroleum exposure.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. Dallas Texas and Korein Tillery (Madison, County) Illinois, Private Wells Analysis: Coordinated data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to leaking underground storage tanks to support litigation noting that private well owners should be compensated for MTBE testing.

Client: Orange County District Attorney (Orange County, California)

SWAPE 3 Rosenfeld CV
Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney’s prosecution of CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as testifying expert in a health effects case against ABC Coke/Drummond Co for polluting a community with PAHs, benzene, particulate matter, heavy metals, and coke oven emissions. Created air dispersions models and conducted attic dust sampling, exposure modeling, and risk assessment for plaintiffs.

Client: Masry Vitatoe (Westlake Village, CA), Engstrom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, CA) & Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas).

Served as consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against the major oil companies for benzene and toluene releases from gas stations and refineries which contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $110 million dollars in injunctive relief.

Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin, Texas)
Served as expert evaluating groundwater contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Interpreted drinking water contamination and community exposure.

Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas) and Sher Leff (San Francisco, California) Serving as consulting expert for several California cities which have filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted wells for various municipalities.

Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas) and Korein Tillery (Madison County, Illinois) Serving as consulting expert for a Class Action defective product Atrazine claim filed in Madison County, Illinois against Syngenta and five other manufactures. The plaintiff class representative is Holiday Shores Water System which is evaluating health issues associated with atrazine, costing out treatment for filtration of public drinking water supplies.

Client: Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, NY)
Serving as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance claims resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping, and the EPA fined the landfill $10,000,000 dollars.

Client: Baron & Budd (Dallas Texas)
Serving as consulting expert for a groundwater contamination case in Pensacola Florida where fluorinated compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama)

SWAPE 4 Rosenfeld CV
Serving as an expert on property damage, medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of over 12,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and dioxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and Cerro Copper’s operations in East Sauget, Illinois.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as an expert on groundwater case when Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost, and flaws with the proposed on site remedy.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorporated facility in West Helena Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides.

Client: Omara & Padilla (San Diego, Califorinia)
Served as testifying expert on nuisance case against Nutro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville California with no odor control devices.

The facility has undergone significant modifications including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage and medical monitoring claims that have been filed against International Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities located in Bastrop Louisiana, Prattville, Alabama, and Georgetown South Carolina.

Client: Estep and Shafer (West Virginia)
Served as expert running various air models to calculate acid emissions dose to residents resulting from emissions from a coal fired power plant in West Virginia.

Client: Watts Law Firm (Austin, Texas), Woodfill Pressler (Houston, Texas), Woska & Ass. (Oklahoma) Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a BNSF and Kopper’s Facility in Somerville, Texas. Conducted field sampling, risk assessment, dose assessment and air modelling to quantify exposure to workers and community members.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Conducted blood sampling and environmental sampling to determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs.

Client: Sanders Law (Colorado Springs, Co) and Vamvoras & Schwartzberg (Lake Charles, Louisiana) Serving as expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake Charles, Louisiana, at the Conoco Phillips Refinery.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)

SWAPE 5 Rosenfeld CV
Served as consulting expert in a defective product lawsuit against Dow Agroscience focusing on Clopyralid, a recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States.

Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo (NY, NY) and The Cochran Firm (Dothan, MS) Served as expert regarding community exposure to metals, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/furans from the burning of Ford Paint Sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood, New Jersey.

Client: Rose, Klein Marias (Los Angeles, CA)
Serving as expert in Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Oakland. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.

Client: Rose, Klein Marias (Los Angeles, CA)
Serving as expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach as the defendant. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.

Client: Graham & Associates (Calabasas, CA)
Served as expert in a case in which General Motors is the plaintiff and BP Arco is the defendant. Conducted air models to demonstrate that sulfur emissions from the BP Arco facility formed sulfuric acid, destroying paint on over 350 automobiles.

Client: Rose, Klien Marias (Los Angeles, CA) and Environmental Law Foundation (San Francisco, CA) Served as expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several brands of potato chips for acrylamide concentration and found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels.

Client: Gonzales & Robinson (Westlake Village, CA)
Served as testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron (Ortho) for allowing a community to be contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Created air dispersion models, soil vadose zone transport models, and evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food.

Client: Environment Now (Santa Monica, CA)
Served as expert for Environment Now to convince the State of California to file a nuisance claim against the automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma-related health care costs.

Client: Trutanich Michell (Long Beach, California)
Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion, particulate air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demonstrate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment.

Client: Azurix of North America (Fort Myers, Florida)

SWAPE 6 Rosenfeld CV
Provided expert opinions, reports and research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites’ boundaries.

Client: MCP Polyurethane (Pittsburg, Kansas)
Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties.

Risk Assessment And Modeling
Client: ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino, California)
Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-art enclosed compost facility. Developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8, and 24-hour off-site concentrations of sulfur, ammonia, and amine as well as prepared a traffic analysis.

Client: Jefferson PRP Group (Los Angeles, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents and hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middle School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District.

Client: Covanta (Susanville California)
Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer.

Client: CIWMB (Sacramento California)
Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Client: Carboquimeca (Bogotá, Columbia)
Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client focusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents contaminating groundwater used for drinking water.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes. Negotiated action levels with DTSC.

Client: San Diego State University (San Diego California) Measured CO2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario with a child resident and a construction worker’s exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation, incidental soil ingestion, and dermal contact with soil.

SWAPE 7 Rosenfeld CV
Client: MCAS Miramar (San Diego, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil, comparing site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway scenarios assuming child resident and construction worker exposure to particulate and vapor inhalation, soil ingestion, and dermal soil contact.

Client: Naval Weapons Station (Seal Beach, California)
Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals, PCBs, dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk.

Client: King County, Douglas County (Washington State)
Measured PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations.

Client: King County, Seattle, Washington.

Conducted emission inventory for several compost and wastewater facilities comparing VOC, particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities.

Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation
Client: Republic Landfill (Santa Clarita, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity.

Client: California Biomass (Victorville, CA)
Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilutionto-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources, character and intensity.

Client: ABT-Haskell (Redlands, California)
Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers, base scrubbers, biofilters, heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.

Client: Synagro (Corona, California)
Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control from an industrial composting facility in Corona, California, reducing VOC emissions by 99 percent.

Client: Jeff Gage, (Tacoma, Washington)
Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk.

SWAPE 8 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Daishowa America (Port Angeles Mill, Washington) Analyzed industrial paper sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals and nutrients to develop a land application program. Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates.

Client: Jeff Gage (Puyallup Washington)
Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and ran EPA dispersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics.

Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation Client: Confidential (Downey, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop.

Client: Confidential (West Hollywood, California)
Designed soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning.

Client: Synagro Technologies (Sacramento, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids application impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlorinated solvent, hydrocarbon and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island. Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP, RI/FS, and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment.

Client: MCP (Walnut, California)
Conducted forensic surface water and sediment sampling. Designed and conducted bench scale laboratory experiments. Demonstrated that metal and organic contaminants in storm water and sediment from landfill flooded and chemically compromised a polyurethane track.

Client: Mission Cleaning Facility (Salinas California)
Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen releasing compound (ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas.

SWAPE 9 Rosenfeld CV
Client: King County, Washingon
Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control.

Client: City of Redmond (Richmond, Washington)
Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matter-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction.

Client: City of Seattle (Seattle, Washington)
Measured VOC emissions from Renton wastewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize, quantify, control and estimate risk from VOCs.

Client: Plumas County (Quincy, California)
Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1% copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes resulting from hydraulic mining. Installed and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading.

Client: Adams Egg Farm (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digesters at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea. Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas.

Client: BLM (Kremmling Colorado)
Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river, protecting water quality by digging and repairing latrines.

Soil Science and Restoration Projects
Client: Kinder Morgan (San Diego County California)
Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline. Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, native grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards.

Client: NAVY BRAC (Orote Landfill, Guam)
Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species’ root-penetration into landfill cap. Plants were used to evapotranspirate water, reducing water leaching through soil profile.

Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles. Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off.

SWAPE 10 Rosenfeld CV
Client: City of Escondido (Escondido California)
Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido, California.

Client: Home Depot (Encinitas, California)
Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coastal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas, California.

Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant (San Diego, California) Planned, installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California.

Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation (Clatskanie Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-acre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on genetically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable.

Client: World Wildlife Fund (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest. Collaborated with skilled botanists, ornithologists and herpetologists.

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

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

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2011). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):113-125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood 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’, in Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII:

SWAPE 11 Rosenfeld CV
Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution, Tallinn, Estonia. 20-22 July, 2009, Southampton, Boston. WIT Press.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

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

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. 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,” Elsevier Publishing, Boston Massachusetts.

Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel” Water Science and Technology, In Press.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) “The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities.” Water Science And Technology, In Press.

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel.” (2004). WEFTEC 2004.

New Orleans, October 2 - 6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids" Water Science and Technology. Vol. 49, No. 9. pp 193-199.

SWAPE 12 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171-178.

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

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida. June 2 and June 6, 2003.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. “Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash.” Biocycle, March 2002, Page 42.

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution. Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4, pp. 173-191
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2000. Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:1662-1668.

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants Water Environment Research, 73: 388-392.

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

Water Environment Research. Volume 131 No. 1-4, pp. 247-262 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Bellevue Washington.

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

P. Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, Vol. 3 No. 2.

P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993.

SWAPE 13 Rosenfeld CV
P. Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St. Kitts. Surf Report, April issue.

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

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

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

England Environmental Agency, 2002. Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury BRISTOL, BS32 4UD Presentations
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.

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. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.

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

Rosenfeld, P.E. (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” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility” Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant” Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

SWAPE 14 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions” Poster Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. “Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP)” – Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007
Rosenfeld P. E. “Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama” – Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts. November 4 to 8th, 2006.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” Mealey’s C8/PFOA Science, Risk & Litigation Conference” October 24, 25. The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia.

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

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP.” PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs.” Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. September 26, 27. Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

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

Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation.” 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference.

May 5-6, 2004. Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

SWAPE 15 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th, 2004. Pheonix Arizona.

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

Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium.

California Ground Water Association. Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. April 7, 2004.

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

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

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California. October 23, 2002
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Vancouver Washington. September 22-24.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland.

November 11-14.

Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation.

Anaheim California. September 16, 2000.

Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000. Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California
Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000. Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Sacramento California.

SWAPE 16 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Bellevue Washington.

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

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

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

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

Professional History
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to present; Lecturer (Asst Res) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist

SWAPE 17 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 2010) Teach Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focuses on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course In Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and 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.

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

SWAPE 18 Rosenfeld CV
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993.

Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil action No. CV 2008-2076
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.

Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 1:05 CV 227
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.

Case Number 153-212928-05
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.

John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.

Case Number VCVVS044671
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a

SWAPE 19 Rosenfeld CV
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.

Case Number SC094173
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.

Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil Chemical Co., Defendants.

Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.

Civil Action Number 07-4037
In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo, et al. Plaintiffs Vs. California Spray Company, et al. Defendants Case No CV 146344
In the District Court of Texas 21st Judicial District of Burleson County Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.

Case Number 25,151
Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 16 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 11: Consultant Response – January 29, 2022

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING