Santa Monica City Council
March 8, 2022

This comment is supported by the comments of expert environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) (Exhibit A), and expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood (Exhibit B). We incorporate the SWAPE and Smallwood comments herein by reference.

I. DISCUSSION
A. The FEIR Fails to Provide Comparative Data to Support Its Rejection of one of the Project Alternatives.

In our November 3, 2021 comment letter to the City regarding the Project, we stated that it was improper for the City to have rejected Alternative 4 in its FEIR only on the grounds that it did not meet economic objectives. In its RTC, the City first stated that because the Project’s mitigation measures made it so that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, no alternative was necessary. (RTC, p.1). The RTC went on to say that despite this, the Project proponents did in fact consider numerous alternatives which served to inform the decision-making process. (Id.).

The City is correct in stating that the feasibility of alternatives need not be considered if there are no Project impacts to mitigate. However, while the FEIR prepared by the City did not find significant and unmitigated impacts, our evidence from experts shows that there are significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated. Specifically, the evidence presented by our experts in our November 3rd letter identified air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas, biological resource, and indoor air quality impacts that were not mitigated in the FEIR. While the RTC responded to some of these impacts, the expert rebuttals below demonstrate that the FEIR and RTC still fail to properly mitigate or address these impacts.

The City therefore needed to consider alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(b). The EIR found the environmentally superior alternative to be Alternative 3, but then dismissed that alternative on the grounds that it did not meet the project objectives. (DEIR, 6-76).

The EIR also found that Alternative 4 would lessen the Project’s environmental impacts, although to a lesser extent than Alternative 3. (Id.). Alternative 4, which would adaptively reuse a vacant portion of the existing GKGM building on-site and develop about 33,000 new square feet, would reduce many of the Project’s impacts that experts identified as potentially significant. (FEIR, p. 6-39-6-55). Reduced construction activities associated with Alternative 4 would mean a shorter construction period, leading to less air quality impacts, less construction-generated noise impacts, fewer daily truck trips and less greenhouse gas emissions, and a reduced quantity of hazardous substances. (Id. at 6-43-6-46). However, according to the FEIR, Alternative 4 does not “fully meet the economic objectives of the proposed project,” and it was therefore rejected.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

This conclusion of infeasibility does not provide the requisite level of detail necessary for an FEIR to adequately fulfill CEQA alternatives requirements. In Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose, the court held that a developer’s reasoning for why one of its alternatives was infeasible was overly ambiguous and not based on substantial evidence. ((2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1357). The court found that “[n]either the FEIR nor the administrative record contains any meaningful detail or independent analysis of the validity of [developer’s] claim that the reduced-size alternative is infeasible, and the City Council made no specific finding validating that claim.” (Id.). Similarly, here, the FEIR does not provide any specific information as to why Alternative 4 is economically infeasible, and its rejection of this alternative is therefore inappropriate.

B. There is Still Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

SWAPE reviewed the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts and provided comments on November 2, 2021, which were summarized and attached to Lozeau Drury’s FEIR comment letter from November 3, 2021. The City responded to SWAPE’s comments ahead of its hearing on November 3, 2021. SWAPE reviewed the City’s response and provided a rebuttal, which is attached as Exhibit A and summarized here.

1. SWAPE maintains that the FEIR’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts.

In its letter from November 2, SWAPE found that “the FEIR’s air model . . . artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions.” (Ex. A, p. 1).

After having reviewed the RTC, SWAPE finds that it fails to address this issue, and therefore maintains that a revised EIR should be prepared. (Id.). The revised EIR must correct the FEIR’s unsubstantiated input parameters for emissions, which led to an improper analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts. (Id.).

2. SWAPE maintains that the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate potential health risk impacts of the Project.

SWAPE stated in its November 2 letter that the FEIR’s less-than-significant conclusions regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon. (Ex. A, p. 5-6). The RTC responded by stating that the FEIR’s construction health risk impact (“HRA”) was adequate as presented, and that according to an e-mail from a Planning and Rule Manager with SCAQMD, a project’s construction and operational health risks need to be evaluated separately. (Id. at 6). In its response letter, SWAPE first states that the RTC fails to justify or correct its initial modeling error for its construction HRA, and that it therefore remains inadequate. (Id.). As for the e-mail referenced, as the RTC

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

did not provide access to the e-mail, SWAPE was unable to verify the RTC’s claim and therefore maintains its comment as to how health risks should be quantified. (Id.)

3. The FEIR’s and RTC’s analyses of greenhouse gas impacts, and subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, are incorrect.

In its letter from November 2, SWAPE found that the FEIR’s analysis of greenhouse gas impacts was inadequate because it failed to compare the Project’s estimated emissions to a quantitative threshold. (Ex. A, p. 6). After reviewing the RTC, SWAPE found that the FEIR’s and RTC’s greenhouse gas analyses and conclusions were still incorrect for two reasons. (Id. at 7-8). First, SWAPE states that the FEIR and RTC still did not consider performance-based standards under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. (Id. at 7). Even if the Project would have a less-than-significant VMT impact, this does not mean that the Project’s GHG emissions from per capita VMT can be assumed less than significant, as the RTC claims. (Id.). Second, SWAPE finds that the RTC fails to adjust the FEIR’s analysis with regard to consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS, and the GHG analysis therefore remains inadequate. (Id. at 7-8).

Because the Project’s potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts as identified by SWAPE were not addressed or rebutted in the FEIR nor by the RTC, SWAPE has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will cause significant adverse environmental impacts. The City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and mitigate these impacts.

C. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Biological Impacts That the FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s biological impacts and provided comments on October 29, 2021, which were summarized and attached to Lozeau Drury’s FEIR comment letter from November 3, 2021. The City responded to Dr. Smallwood’s comments ahead of its hearing on November 3, 2021.

Dr. Smallwood reviewed the City’s response and provided a rebuttal, which is attached as Exhibit B and summarized here.

1. The FEIR remains inadequate in its characterization of the existing environmental setting as it relates to wildlife.

Dr. Smallwood begins by noting that in its response, the City did not dispute his detection of wildlife at the Project site, which included detection of 18 species, two of which were special-status. (Ex. B, p. 1). The City mischaracterized the importance of the presence of these species, writing them off as transient and therefore insignificant.

However, Dr. Smallwood found that the City’s explanation relied on pseudoscientific characterizations of wildlife habitat, and that species occurring in the City were using urbanized Santa Monica for survival. (Id.).

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

In his comment from October 29, 2021 Dr. Smallwood also noted the many occurrences of species that had arisen on the databases eBird and iNaturalist. In its RTC, the City stated that these occurrences do not establish presence of suitable breeding and foraging habitat, and merely show single, transient occurrences. Dr.

Smallwood responds that the City cannot know whether or not these occurrences are important without further study, and it cannot simply determine that they are meaningless based on assumptions and speculation. (Ex. B, p. 2). He also notes that even if a site is not in an animal’s territory, it may serve as an important stopover location. (Id.).

When evaluating a Project under CEQA, a City must address the questions in Appendix G and determine whether impacts will be significant. Under its biological resources section, Appendix G asks project proponents to identify whether the Project would “[h]ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species . . .” Dr. Smallwood’s comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have a substantial effect on special status species, and this impact must therefore be analyzed in the EIR. The City’s failure to analyze this impact at all leaves it without any evidence supporting its conclusion to the contrary. The City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and potentially mitigate these impacts.

2. The FEIR still fails to account for the increased possibility of birdwindow collision mortality that will be caused by the project.

According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project will most likely have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. In its RTC, the City stated that the Project is in a highly urbanized area and that there are buildings greater in height and surface area than that of the Project. It also stated that the Project would comply with SMMC Section

9.21.120, which prohibits use of highly reflective materials. The City concludes that the bird collision rate estimated by Dr. Smallwood is speculative, and that the construction of a single 3-story structure would not be expected to change flying patterns of bird species in the area such that it would cause increased bird-window collisions.

In response, Dr. Smallwood first notes that the height of a building is not determinative of its impact on birds, and further study is required by the City to assess the way in which birds move through the area in which the Project is proposed to be located. (Ex. B, p. 2). According to his observations, many birds appeared to be targeting the Project site for flying through and stopping over. Next, he stated that even if a quarter of the windows were reflective, as would be allowed under SMMC Section

9.21.120, there would still be a risk of many bird collision fatalities. As for his estimates regarding bird collision rates, Dr. Smallwood explains that they are not speculative, but empirical. His predictions were based on a review of scientific studies published in peerreviewed scientific journals. (Id.).

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of February 2, 2022
Appeal of Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Because these impacts were not addressed or rebutted in the FEIR nor by the subsequent response from November 3rd and Dr. Smallwood has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will cause significant adverse biological impacts, the City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and mitigate these impacts.

II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER believes that the EIR is wholly inadequate.

SAFER urges the City Council to refrain from recommending certification of the FEIR or recommending approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address the concerns raised herein in a Revised EIR. Thank you for considering our comments in this appeal.

Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

EXHIBIT
A

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 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]
November 18, 2021
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (SCH No. 2018011001) Dear Ms. Fuentes,
We have reviewed the Response to Lozeau Drury dated November 3, 2021 (“RTC”), the October 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), and the December 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Monica (“City”). After our review of the RTC, we find that the RTC is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As we asserted in our November 2nd comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions In our November 2nd comment letter, we identified several issues with the FEIR’s air model (California Emissions Estimator Model, “CalEEMod”)1 that artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions. After review of the RTC, we found that the FEIR fails to address all our concerns and maintain that the FEIR’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to accurately estimate the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. As such, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s local and regional air quality impacts. Until a proper air quality analysis is conducted, the Project should not be approved. 1 http://caleemod.com/

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” CalEEMod models included an unsubstantiated reduction to the acres of grading value. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate for two reasons and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

First, regarding the unsubstantiated reduction to the acres of grading value, the RTC states:
“The proposed project’s total acres of grading was accurately estimated in CalEEMod, which is based on project site specific information including the acreage of the project site” (p. 4).

However, this response is insufficient. As previously discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the dimensions of the Project site have no impact on the acres of grading value. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation, only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres is based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.”2
As you can see, the acres of grading value is based on construction equipment and the length of the grading or site preparation phase. As such, the RTC’s claim that the Project’s total acres of grading is “based on project site specific information including the acreage of the project site” is incorrect.

Second, the RTC states:
“The purpose of the SCAQMD guidance is to estimate the maximum acres of grading per day to determine the daily thresholds for the localized significance thresholds (LST) analysis. The commenter confuses the two and the project’s acres of grading is not underestimated.

Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

As demonstrated above, the RTC references SCAQMD guidance, which discusses the maximum number of acres disturbed per peak day and provides the following table:3 2 “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. 3 “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemodguidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 However, this guidance is with respect to acres per day while the CalEEMod input parameter refers to the total acres of grading throughout the course of the grading or site preparation phases.4 As such, the revised acres of grading value remains incorrect. As a result, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Unsubstantiated Off-Road Construction Equipment Usage Hours As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” CalEEMod models included several changes to the off-road construction equipment usage hours. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts and usage hours, the RTC states:
“The proposed project’s off-road construction equipment unit amounts and usage hours are based on project specific information provided by the applicant, as described on page 4.2-32, Construction, of the Air Quality FEIR Chapter. Not only are changes to model default values acceptable and industry standard, but the changes result in a more accurate assessment of project-generated construction and operational emissions because they are based on projectspecific information. For example, the commenter questions changes to construction equipment hour usage equipment assumptions, which were all based on applicant-provided information in consultation with a construction contractor. Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

However, this response is insufficient and fails to substantiate the associated changes for two reasons.

First, as previously discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the source provided for the construction equipment usage hour assumptions is Appendix B, the CalEEMod output files themselves.

This is incorrect, as the Project documents should substantiate the changes included in the CalEEMod model, not vice versa.
4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://caleemod.com/, p. 34.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 Second, simply stating that the construction equipment usage hours were “based on applicant-provided information in consultation with a construction contractor” does not justify these changes. As previously stated, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA” (emphasis added).5
Here, until the RTC provides substantial evidence of the applicant-provided equipment usage hours, or provides access to above-mentioned consultation with a construction contractor, we cannot verify the changes. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Unsubstantiated Worker and Vendor Trip Numbers
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” CalEEMod model included several changes to the default vendor and worker trip numbers. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the unsubstantiated changes to the vendor and worker trip numbers, the RTC states:
“Worker and vendor trips were based on CalEEMod default values. CalEEMod provides such default values so that the model may still be used to evaluate emissions from a land use development project in the event that such detailed information is not yet known (for instance, for a project in the planning stage). Similarly, CalEEMod provides a host of default values for the construction emissions analysis. Construction default values used in the assessment includes construction truck and vehicle worker trips. Defaults in CalEEMod are often inaccurate and does not take into account project specifics or local on-site conditions that may limit peak construction activities – for example, size of site and city rules regarding the number of trucks that may travel to and from a project site and be staged onsite. However, the emissions analysis for this project utilized project-specific data to the extent information was available. Therefore, the use of CalEEMod default parameters is appropriate and the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

However, simply stating that the “emissions analysis for this project utilized project-specific data to the extent information was available” does not justify the revised worker and vendor trip numbers.

According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
5 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA” (emphasis added).6
Here, until the RTC provides substantial evidence of the project-specific data used to revise the worker and vendor trip numbers, we cannot verify the changes. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-thansignificant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Failure to Model Material Export
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” CalEEMod model failed to include any amount of the material export required for Project construction. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the air quality impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the failure to model material export, the RTC states:
“The proposed project included approximate material export as a part of the construction emission calculations. As presented on page 4.2-30, Construction, of the Air Quality EIR Chapter the proposed project was estimated to require approximately 58,000 cubic yards of soil export during grading/shoring activities. Grading information was based on grading plans provided by the applicant. Excavation/shoring export has been reflected in the model. Grading activities are anticipated to be performed through the use of off-road construction equipment (e.g., grader and tractor/loader/backhoe) which would occur over approximately 8 to 9 months. Based on information provided by the applicant, 10 cubic yard trucks would be used. Therefore, it was assumed a total of 5,800 round haul trips or 11,600 one-way trips would be required for grading/excavation activities which was included in the model. Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 4).

However, while we agree that 58,000 cubic yards of material export was included in the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” model, the “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” model still fails to include any amount of material export whatsoever. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the FEIR’s “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” model is unsubstantiated, and the FEIR and RTC’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate the potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation. Review of the FEIR and RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As discussed below, 6 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 we find the RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the FEIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon.

Specifically, in response to our November 2nd comments regarding the Project’s inadequate construction health risk analysis (“HRA”), the RTC states:
“Based on the construction HRA using this refined model, AERMOD, using AERMOD methodologies from the SCAQMD, and using the age sensitivity factors and other health risk evaluation parameters recommended by the SCAQMD and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk impacts were determined to be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cancer risk and non-cancer chronic risk for diesel particulate matter after implementation of MM-AQ-1, which would require the use of Tier 4 interim equipment for all construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower. Therefore, the FEIR’s analysis is adequate as presented” (p. 5).

Furthermore, regarding SCAQMD guidance on construction and operational health risk impacts, the RTC states:
“SCAQMD does not have guidance requiring that construction and operational health risk be evaluated together. Based on an email from Michael Krause, Planning and Rule Manager with South Coast Air Quality Management District, who is an expert, a project’s construction and operational health risks need to be evaluated separately. Thus, the construction HRA is analyzed in accordance with industry guidance and an operational HRA is not necessary” (p. 5).

However, these responses are insufficient for two reasons.

First, despite the use of the more refined AERMOD model, the FEIR’s construction HRA incorrectly relies upon exhaust PM10 estimates from a flawed air model. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As such, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the health risk significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Second, the RTC claims that an operational HRA is not necessary and, thus, fails to evaluate the health risk impacts associated with Project operation whatsoever. However, as the RTC fails to provide access to the above-mentioned email from Michael Krause, we cannot verify the RTC’s claim. Thus, as discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the Project is inconsistent with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). As such, until both the Project’s construction and operational health risks are quantified, summed together, and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, the RTC’s response is inadequate, and we maintain our November 2nd comment that the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
As discussed in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR estimated that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 1,147.12 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 4.6-35, Table 4.6-4). However, the FEIR failed to compare the Project’s estimated GHG emissions to a quantitative threshold. Instead, the FEIR relied upon the Project’s consistency with the CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City of Santa Monica’s LUCE, Sustainable City Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 4.6- 35 - 4.6-43). Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s GHG impacts. As discussed below, we maintain that the FEIR’s and RTC’s GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, are incorrect for two reasons. (1) The FEIR and RTC fail to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and
(2) The FEIR and RTC fail to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. 1) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously stated in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR incorrectly concluded that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the FEIR failed to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project fails adjust their analysis. Specifically, the RTC states:
“According to the transportation analysis provided in the FEIR, the proposed project meets Tier 3 of the City’s VMT screening criteria, and therefore no VMT analysis is required, and the project is determined to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. Given the less than significant VMT impact, the GHG emissions from per capita VMT associated with the project are assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan” (p. 7).

However, this response is insufficient. Simply because the Project will have a less than significant VMT impact does not mean that the Project’s GHG emissions per capita VMT would be less than significant.

As such, we find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the GHG impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.
2) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS As previously stated in our November 2nd comment letter, the FEIR incorrectly concluded that the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Specifically, the FEIR failed to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project fails to adjust their analysis. Specifically, the RTC again states:
“According to the transportation analysis provided in the FEIR, the proposed project meets Tier 3 of the City’s VMT screening criteria, and therefore no VMT analysis is required, and the project is determined to have a less-than-significant VMT impact. Given the less than significant VMT impact, the GHG emissions from per capita VMT associated with the project are assumed to be consistent with the VMT goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan” (p. 7).

As previously mentioned, simply because the Project will have a less than significant VMT impact does not mean that the Project’s GHG emissions per capita VMT would be less than significant. As such, we

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 8 find the FEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the GHG impact significance determination is unsubstantiated.

Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures As previously stated in our November 2nd comment letter, our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, we reiterate our November 2nd comment that the Project should implement all sustainability design features, such as energy efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, the installation of a PV system, and low-flow water fixtures, as formal mitigation measures. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

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

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

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

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

ProfessionalCertifications:

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

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

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

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

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

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

Hydrogeology:

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

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

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

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

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

Teaching:

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

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

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

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

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

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

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

Unpublished report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment B 6.A.c
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

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

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

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

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

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

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

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

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

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

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

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

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

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

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

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations:

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

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

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

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

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

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

Teaching Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Grants Awarded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

EXHIBIT
B

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
City of Santa Monica, City Planning Division
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28
Santa Monica, California 90401 19 November 2021
RE: 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project
Dear Ms. Kwok,
I write to reply to responses to my comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the proposed 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (City of Santa Monica 2021). My qualifications as an expert on biological resources were summarized in my letter of 29 October 2021 along with its attached CV. My replies correspond with the letter-number labeling used by City of Santa Monica.

Response D.1: “The project site is developed and located within a highly urbanized area” with “minimal roosting and foraging habitat” and “the project site and surrounding area do not provide typical foraging and nesting habitat.” Reply: The City does not dispute our detections of wildlife at the site of the proposed project, nor does the City dispute the eBird and iNaturalist records of sightings of special-status species in the City of Santa Monica near the proposed project site.

Although these records are not disputed, the City disputes the meanings of the records of occurrence of wildlife, and most specifically of special-status species of wildlife.

According to the City, wildlife seen in the City indisputably occur there, but are nothing other than transients and consumers of human garbage. According to City of Santa Monica, wildlife occurring in the City do not belong there and are therefore of no value.

It must be difficult to explain away the occurrences of wildlife and special-status species of wildlife at a place where the City assumed none would live, and where the City opted to perform no wildlife surveys. The City’s explanations rely on pseudoscientific characterizations of wildlife habitat. The City attempts to distinguish between different types of habitat and to assign different values to each type. The attempts, however, betray ignorance of wildlife ecology. Habitat is defined by a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997). Krausman (2016) updated the definition of habitat as “The resources and conditions present in an area that produce occupancy, which may include survival and reproduction by a given organism. Habitat is organism-specific and is more than vegetation or vegetation structure.” That aspect of Krausman’s definition that goes to survival is of critical importance in the context of wildlife using the urbanized portion of Santa Monica as habitat. Wild animals occurring in Santa Monica are not doing so as tourists, nor merely for the opportunities to eat “trash discarded by humans,” as the City suggests; they occur in the City to survive.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 Response D.1: “The air space over the project site would still be available and its existing use by birds and other wildlife and plant species is expected to be unchanged by project construction and operation.”
Reply: Within the project’s footprint, most of the airspace within 45 feet of the ground would no longer be available to volant wildlife. The volume of lost airspace to wildlife would be nearly 2,019,006 cubic feet. If the City means to say that airspace would remain above the new building, this would be true but misleading. Many volant animals fly relatively low in the airspace, which is why electric distribution lines, transmission lines, wind turbines and low-rise buildings kill so many of them.

Response D.1: “eBird and iNaturalist documents occurrences of species are one instance but it does not establish the presence of suitable breeding and foraging habitat that a species is dependent upon, just a snapshot in time. For example, a rare bird seen in a tree of a McDonald parking lot can be documented and submitted to these online geodatabases. A single, transient occurrence of a special-status bird can occur anywhere, but that does not establish suitable habitat or territory.” Reply: The City speculates which observations of wildlife are meaningful and which are not. According to the City, a bird visiting McDonald’s is to be dismissed as insignificant because it does not represent a part of the bird’s territory. However, the City would not know the importance of McDonald’s to this bird without studying it further; it simply comes to a conclusion that is convenient to the City. Animals have their reasons for occurring at a site, and it is not for the City to decide the meanings of those visits based on assumptions and speculation. Nor is it necessary for the use of a site to be within the animal’s territory in order for it to serve a meaningful purpose. For example, birds on migration must be able to find opportunities for stopover.

Response D.2: “The project site is developed and located within a highly urbanized area that has many other buildings that have greater height and greater surface area of windows when compared to the proposed Project. The proposed project would not constitute a substantive change to the surrounding urban environment and would not have a significant impact on wildlife.”
Reply: The height of a building does not determine its relative risk of collision to birds.

Some of the most lethal buildings to birds have been low-rise buildings. Instead of speculating over reasons to dismiss the potential impact, the appropriate approach would be to study how birds move through that part of the City where the project is proposed. It looked to me and Noriko Smallwood that many birds were targeting the project site for flying through and stopping over in the trees surrounding the site.

Response D.2: “The proposed project would be required to comply with SMMC Section 9.21.120 which prohibits the use of highly reflective materials.” Reply: Even if 25% of the windows were reflective per the extent allowable under SMMC Section 9.21.120, this extent would comprise 145 m2 of reflective glass. This much reflective glass would risk many bird collision fatalities. It also would not mean

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 that the rest of the glass is safe. Reflectivity represents only one of the two risk factors, the other being transparency. The remainder of the glass on the building would also be dangerous to birds. My prediction of 42 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 25‒60) was derived from studies of bird mortality at a variety of buildings with various types and amounts of glass. In other words, the implementation of SMMC Section 9.21.120 would not lessen my predicted impact.

Response D.2: “The bird collision rate stated in this comment is speculative not supported by substantial evidence that such bird mortalities would occur due to construction of a 3-story structure at the Project site.” Reply: The predicted collision rate is not speculative. Its foundation is empirical. It is based on a review of scientific studies that were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Response D.2: “the construction of a single 3-story structure would not be expected to change flying patterns of bird species in the area such that there would an increase in bird window collisions.”
Reply: The same could have been speculated of all the buildings at which fatality monitoring contributed to the empirical foundation of my prediction of bird-collision mortality.

Response D.3: “The Initial Study determined that the proposed Project would not have any potential to result in a significant impact to biological resources and the topic was eliminated from further consideration in the Draft EIR.” Reply: The Initial Study was mistaken to neglect the second or third largest anthropogenic source of avian mortality known to science. The EIR should be revised to include an analysis of potential impacts to birds caused by the project, and to formulate appropriate mitigation.

Response D.3: “...suitable habitat for sensitive species, or special-status species, does not occur within the City.. would not result in the taking of rare or sensitive species or the degradation of sensitive habitat.”
Reply: Whether sensitive habitat occurs in Santa Monica is not the issue. As Hall et al. (1997) and Krausman (2016) point out, habitat is habitat. The term “sensitive habitat” is vague and of no meaning in the context of avian use of Santa Monica. Although some birds obviously reside in Santa Monica, many birds visiting Santa Monica are on their way from one habitat patch to another. The airspace above and around existing buildings comprises an important part of avian habitat, enabling birds to travel to where they need to go.

Response D.3: “This comment does not establish any new information that would require revision to the FEIR.”

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 Reply: My comments provided an empirically-founded prediction of bird-window collision mortality, the impacts of which were entirely neglected by the City of Santa Monica. Furthermore, my comments established that birds live on the project site, and other birds fly through the airspace above and around the project site, and that they do so in an environment that is already dangerous to birds due to the extensive reflective and transparent glass on neighboring buildings (Photo 1). The project as proposed would displace birds from more of their aerosphere and would needlessly add birdwindow collision risk without adequate mitigation.

Photo 1. Another view of the reflective nature of glass covering a neighboring building to the proposed project site, challenging passing birds to discern which tree is real and which is not.

Thank you for your attention,
____________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 REFERENCES CITED
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Krausman, P. R. 2016. Another Plea for Standard Terminology. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:1143–1144. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21121

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 668 professional publications, including:
 88 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 554 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 87 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); doi:10.3390/d12030098.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 7

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 8
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.

Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.

Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524.

Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 9
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.

Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:

Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.

Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.

Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.

Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.

Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.

Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agroecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.

Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.

Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.

Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 10
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.

Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.

Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.

Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.

Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.

Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.

Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.

Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.

Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.

Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.

Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 11
Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.

Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.

Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.

Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. Whitetailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.

Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.

Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259.

Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.

Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67.

Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.

Biological Conservation 62:149-159.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 12
Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.

Peer-reviewed Reports
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066
Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.

Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No.

CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 13
Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.altamontsrcarchive.org/alt_doc/cec_final_report_08_11_04.pdf Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp.

Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp.

Non-Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.

Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.

Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California.

Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway.

Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 14
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay.

Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.

Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.

Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.

Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075.

Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075.

EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.

Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 15
sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA.

Taipei, Taiwan.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa.

California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 16
former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).

Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 17

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.

Alameda County SRC document P-145.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 18
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.

Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collisionrelated mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 19
Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23.

Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60.

Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44.

Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43.

Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004.

SRC Document P26.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).

April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget.

Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22.

Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.

Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20.

Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19.

Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16.

Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement.

Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 20
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization.

Reports to Clients
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client.

Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area.

Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District.

Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 21
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR.

Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.

Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one.

Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 22
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.

Report to Pattern Energy.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 23
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.

Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellowbilled Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 24
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, [email protected] . 34 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.

Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 25
Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.

Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.

Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp.

Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.

Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site

30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 26
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA.

Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.

Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp.

Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures.

Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the JeffersonMartin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.

Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.

Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.

Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 27
Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.

Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.

Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.

Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.

Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal.

Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 28
of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp.

Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.

Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC.

Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages.

Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.

Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.

Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 29
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia.

Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia.

Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP.

Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp.

EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.

Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California.

Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp.

Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.

Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits.

Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA.

Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis.

Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages)
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:
 Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13);  14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);
 SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26);  Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98);  Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18);  Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);
 Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);
 Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 30
 Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19);  Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20);  Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23);  Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26);  Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);  Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);  Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21);  Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24);  Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27);  2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4);  1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);
 Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);
 11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17);  Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);
 Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64);  Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12);  Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28);  Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted;  Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);
 3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19);  Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8);  2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25);  Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4);  2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8);  Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3);  Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16);  Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5);  Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);
 AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);
 Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse (2020; 15);  Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);
 Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20);  Replies to responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5);  3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);
 Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);
 UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24);  North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);
 Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15);  Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27);  Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23);  First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23);  GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);
 Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29);  2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 31
 Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30);  Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14);  Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);
 Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17);  1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28);  1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:
 Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46);  Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);
 Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
 Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24);  Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);  The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19);  Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);
 Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);
 27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);
 2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11);  Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13);  Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18);  East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22);  Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);
 555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);
 Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27);  1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19);  Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27);  Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);
 Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);
 Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);
 Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13);  Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22);  Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9);  Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12);  ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9);  Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14);  Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19);  PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);
 Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);
 Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19)  World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19);  Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12);  West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);
 Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 32
 Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10);  Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);  Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26);  Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);  1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);
 Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);  SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);  PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);  Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);
 Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);
 Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);  Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);  Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);  We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);
 Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);  Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);  Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);  Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);
 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);  The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);
 Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);  Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);  North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);  South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);
 Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);  Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);  Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);
 LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);
 Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);
 South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);
 CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);
 2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11);  Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7);  Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12);  Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21);  Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22);  Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);
 Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21);  2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12);  Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);
 City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);
 Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);
 Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);
 IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 33
 Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);
 Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);  2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30);  At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);
 Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10);  Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);
 Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57);  750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14);  Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12);  San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);
 CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);
 Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18);  Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);
 North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11);  Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);
 Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23);  Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18);  Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13);  CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23);  Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24);  Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15);  800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18);  2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22);  Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15);  Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21);  Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15);  Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9);  Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13);  Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27);  Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48);  Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);
 The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);
 Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin County (2017; 5);
 Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5);  San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22);  Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12);  Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12);  MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12);  PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45);  Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);
 Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5);  Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 34
 Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13);  Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);
 Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);
 Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14);  Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12);  CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12);  Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9);  City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7);  Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49);  Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15);  Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);  Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6);  Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5);  Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12);  Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);
 Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9);  Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18);  Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27);  Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14);  Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41);  Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38);  Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31);  Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6);  Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10);  White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9);  Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9);  Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6);  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Rosamond (2015; 28);  Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9);  Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);
 West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10);  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28);  Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10);  World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12);  Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143);  Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21);  Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);
 Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12);  Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20);  Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9);  Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 35
 Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);  Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3);  Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23);  Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16);  Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9);  West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18);  Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);
 Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49);  Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19);  Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12);  Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31);  Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11);  Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);
 Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16);  Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13);  Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13);  Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6);  Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);
 Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);
 Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10);  Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);
 FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9);  Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6);  Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8);  Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23);  Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );  Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9);  Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10);  Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp);  Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8);  North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62);  Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects Ism Lancaster (2012; 8);  J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14);  Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8);
 Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9);  Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15);  Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16);  Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);
 Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5);  Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 36
 Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16);  City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28);  Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);  Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4);  Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9);  Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13);  Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16);  Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7);  Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6);  Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41);  Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17);  St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);
 Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10);  Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);
 SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);
 Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);
 Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9);  Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);
 Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142);  Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2);  Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9);
 The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);
 Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);
 SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);
 Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66);  Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20);  Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33);  Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15);  Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);
 Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37);  Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 37
 North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);
 Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies);  Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);  Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15);  Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);
 Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);
 Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);
 Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21);  Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10);  Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41);  UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23);  Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18);  Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6);  Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23);  Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9);  Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7);  Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3);  UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);
 Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22);  Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);
 California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20);  Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13);  UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);
 Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);
 Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5);  Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10);  Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000);  US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4);  California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11);
 Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);
 Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9).  California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);  Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);
 Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation);  Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8);  Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998);  Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28);  Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998);

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 38
 San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
 Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12);  Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);
 Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);
 Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.);  NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);
 Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);
 Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.);  Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.);  Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.);  Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);  Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);
 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);
 State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);  Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
 Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);
 Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
 NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);
 Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).

Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
 Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);
 Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);
 Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
 Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 39
103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas.

Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.

Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.

Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.

Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.

East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November 2019.

Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.

Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999-

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 40
2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.

Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017.

Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015.

From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California.

The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015.

Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015.

Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.

Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013.

Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.

Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012.

Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012.

Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.

Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 41
Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.

Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.

Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.

California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.

Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007.

Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.

Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006.

Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.

California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006.

Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006.

Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006.

Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.

Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.

American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.

Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.

Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.

Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 42
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.

Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.

Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.

Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.

Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.

Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004.

Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.

The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.

Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.

Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.

Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.

Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.

Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.

California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.

National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.

Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 43
Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.

Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.

Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.

A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.

Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
“No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.

In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997.

Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.

Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.

Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.

Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.

Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995.

Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.

Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 44
Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994.

Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994.

Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993.

Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.

Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993.

Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.

Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993.

Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993.

Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.

Davis, August 6, 1993.

Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.

May 1993.

Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993.

Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990.

Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990.

Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.

A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986.

The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.

Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion;

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 45
Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.

Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
 Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.
 Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.
 Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
 Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.
 Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.  Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
 Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

Printed Mass Media
Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. OpEd to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California.

Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California.

Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 46
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.

Radio/Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011.

KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009;
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008;
KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.

October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.

Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 47
Journal Journal
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.

Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J
Biological Control The Condor
Committees
• Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 48
Other Professional Activities or Products
Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified.

Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects.

Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.

Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.

Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm.

Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 49
Representative Clients/Funders
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables
Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy
Lozeau | Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine)
Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants
Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data
Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch
Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc.

Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy
Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service
California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice
Sierra Club California Energy Commission
National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife The Humane Society California Department of Transportation Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry
Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk County of Alameda
Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien
Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc.

AquAlliance Bob Sarvey
Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd
Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund
G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson
Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy
Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc.

Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc.

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Ogin, Inc.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Smallwood CV 50
Representative special-status species experience
Common name Species name Description
Field experience
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus
distichlus
Captures; habitat assessment
Bats Thermal imaging surveys
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Monitored success of relocation and habitat
restoration
Analytical
Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report.

Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Expert testimony

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Via Email
November 3, 2021
Shawn Landres, Chair
Planning Commission
Community Development Dept.

City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Rachel Kwok, Environmental Planner
Community Development Dept.

City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Community Development Dept.

City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Denise Anderson-Warren, CMC
City Clerk’s Office
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90407
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report, 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)
Dear Commissioner Landres, Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Ms.

Kwok, Ms. Yeo and Ms. Anderson-Warren:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report; (“FEIR”) prepared for the Project known as 1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH #2018011001), including all actions referring or related to the development of approximately 73,555 square feet (sf) of medical research and development (R&D) and clinical/medical office space with five levels of subterranean parking located at 1925 Arizona Avenue and 1242 20th Street, on APNs 4276-013-033 and 4276-013-032 in the City of Santa Monica (“Project”).

After reviewing the FEIR, we conclude that the FEIR fails as an informational document, fails to adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts, and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. SAFER

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

requests that the Community Development Department address these shortcomings in a revised environmental impact report (“REIR”) and recirculate the REIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.

This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH (Exhibit A), environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) (Exhibit B), and expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood (Exhibit C). We incorporate the Offermann, SWAPE, and Smallwood comments herein by reference.

I. Project Description.

The applicant is proposing to demolish a 4-car garage, two two-story structures, and a surface parking lot to develop a 73,555 square foot medical research and development and clinical/medical office space within a “Wellness Center” located at 1925 Arizona Avenue and 1242 20th Street in the City of Santa Monica. This would include construction of a 3-story building and construction of “support areas” including terraces and utility support/elevator spaces, and five levels of subterranean parking.

The parking garage would include 275 parking spaces and a mix of operational and storage spaces for R&D uses, trash and recycling rooms, bicycle parking and storage, EV charging spaces, employee locker and shower facilities, and maintenance functions.

II. Legal Background.

CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) (except in certain limited circumstances). See, e.g. Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA.

Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.

CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1). “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.

Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 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.” CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “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). The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732.

While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12). As the court stated in Berkeley Jets:

A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.) More recently, the California Supreme Court has emphasized that:

When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted], and (2) makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences.

Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018), citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

“Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 516. Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” 6 Cal.5th at 516, citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197. “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” 6 Cal.5th at 516. Whether a discussion of a potential impact is sufficient “presents a mixed question of law and fact. As such, it is generally subject to independent review. However, underlying factual determinations—including, for example, an agency’s decision as to which methodologies to employ for analyzing an environmental effect—may warrant deference.” Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 516. As the Court emphasized:
[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question. A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.

Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 514. We find that the FEIR prepared by the City here is inadequate for the reasons set forth below.

III. DISCUSSION
A. The FEIR Fails to Provide Comparative Data to Support Its Rejection of one of the Project Alternatives.

An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly.

One of CEQA’s fundamental requirements is that the DEIR must identify the “environmentally superior alternative,” and require implementation of that alternative unless it is infeasible. 14 Cal.Code Regs. §1526.6(e)(2); Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act §15.37 (Cont. Educ. Of the Bar, 2008).

As explained by the Supreme Court, an environmentally superior alternative may not be rejected simply because it is more expensive or less profitable:

The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180-81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322 (county’s approval of 80 unit hotel over smaller 64 unit alternative was not supported by substantial evidence).

The FEIR’s conclusion that Alternative 4 is infeasible simply because it does not meet economic objectives falls short of CEQA requirements. In Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, the County asserted three reasons in its FEIR for its rejection of an environmentally superior alternative. Relevant here, one of the reasons was that the project proponent “could not expect to achieve the same economic objectives” with the alternative. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1459. The Court found that this explanation fell short of CEQA requirements because it reflected a “misunderstanding regarding the economic feasibility of an alternative.” Id. at 1461. The Court went on to state:

Although the “economic viability” of an alternative is a relevant consideration in evaluating the feasibility of the alternative (see Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1)), the fact that Walters cannot achieve the same economic objective from developing the BLM property is not determinative. The issue is not whether the alternative is less profitable than the project as proposed, but whether the reduced profitability of the alternative is “‘sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.’ []”
Id. Further, the Court stated that “there is no evidence or analysis whatsoever of the comparative costs or profitability of developing the two parcels.” Id. at 1462. The EIR “include[d] only the barest of facts regarding the BLM parcel, vague and unsupported conclusions about aesthetics, views, and economic objectives, and no independent

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

analysis whatsoever of relevant considerations. In this respect, the County failed to proceed in the manner required by law.” Id. at 1465.

Here, the FEIR states only that Alternative 4 “would not fully meet the economic objectives of the proposed project.” FEIR, p. 6-55. Under the standard set forth by Save Round Valley, this is an inadequate analysis of the alternative, and does not constitute substantial evidence that Alternative 4 is infeasible.

B. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (October 14, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose commercial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr.

Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. A, p. 2-3.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that future commercial employees of the Project would be exposed to a 17.7 in one million risk, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id. at 4. This potential exposure level exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in the EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Id. at 11.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Project’s future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Id. at 5-9. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

The failure to address the project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added).

The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project.

Commercial employees will be users of the Project. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language.

CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future employees of the

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Project are human beings and the health and safety of those workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as that of nearby residents currently living near the project site.

The City’s EIR must disclose and mitigate the potential environmental impacts to future users of the building.

C. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

1. The FEIR Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Air Quality Impacts.

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gases. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B and their comments are briefly summarized here.

SWAPE found that the FEIR incorrectly estimated the Project’s construction and operational emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s impacts on local and regional air quality. The FEIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (“CalEEMod”). FEIR, p. 4.2-30. This model, which is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions, relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. Ex. B, p. 1. CEQA requires any changes to the default values to be justified by substantial evidence. Id. at 1-2.

SWAPE reviewed the FEIR’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the FEIR. Ex. B, p. 2.

As a result, the FEIR’s air quality analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions.

Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the FEIR’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the FEIR or otherwise unjustified:

1. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value. Ex. B, p. 2.

2. Unsubstantiated Off-Road Construction Equipment Usage Hours. Ex. B, p. 3.

3. Failure to Substantiate Demolition and Reduction to Number of Demolition Hauling Trips. Ex. B, p. 5.

4. Unsubstantiated Worker and Vendor Trip Numbers. Ex. B, p. 6.

5. Failure to Model Material Export. Ex. B, p. 8.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

As a result of these errors in the FEIR, the Project’s construction and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.

2. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have a Significant Health Impact as a Result of Diesel Particulate Emissions.

One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.1
The FEIR concluded that the mitigated excess cancer risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, and that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because of a low number of daily truck trips and compliance with CARB regulations. Ex. B, p. 9; FEIR, p. 4.2-48. SWAPE identifies four main reasons for why the FEIR’s evaluation of health risk impacts and less-than-significant conclusion is incorrect.

First, the FEIR’s construction HRA is incorrect due to the inputting of several incorrect values into the CalEEMod output files. Ex. B, p. 9. The FEIR’s HRA uses an underestimated DPM concentration, and therefore underestimates the Project’s cancer risk and cannot be relied upon to determine impacts of the Project. Id.

Second, because the FEIR did not prepare a quantified operational HRA, it fails to quantitively evaluate operational toxic air contaminants (“TACs”). Ex. B, p. 9. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health cause by those emissions. Ex. B, p. 10; See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510. 1 See CARB Resources - Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.).

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Third, the 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. OEHHA released its most recent guidance document in 2015 describing which types of projects warrant preparation of an HRA. See “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html. The OEHHA document recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Ex. B, p. 10. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. A Revised EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts.

Fourth, the FEIR fails to evaluate the “cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.” Ex. B, p. 10 (emphasis in original). A Revised EIR should be prepared to quantify the cumulative excess cancer risk posed by the Project’s construction and operation to nearby, existing receptors, and compare it to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Id.

SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model.

Ex. B, p. 11. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 50 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id. at 11-14.

SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 50 meters away over the course of Project construction are approximately 12.5 in one million for infants and 69.1 in one million for children. Id. at

13. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of Project construction and operation of 30 years is approximately 96.5 in one million. Id.

The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. SWAPE recommends that “an updated EIR [] be prepared and include an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined HRA which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associate with both Project construction and operation.” Ex. B, p. 13-14.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

3. The FEIR Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,147.12 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (“MT CO2e/year”).

However, it does not compare those emissions to a threshold, instead relying on the Project’s consistency with CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City of Santa Monica’s LUCE, Sustainable City Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Ex. B, p. 14. However, SWAPE states that the FEIR’s conclusion about a less-than-significant greenhouse gas impact is incorrect for several reasons:
• The FEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model;
• The FEIR’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact;
• The FEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and
• The FEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

SWAPE’s analysis demonstrates potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts from the project that necessitate mitigation, and it proposes that the Project’s sustainability design features be implemented as formal mitigation measures. In addition to implementing these measures, the Revised EIR should include an updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis.

D. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Biological Impacts That the FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the FEIR’s analysis of the Project’s biological impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit C and his comments are briefly summarized here.

1. The FEIR is inadequate in its characterization of the existing environmental setting as it relates to wildlife.

Dr. Smallwood visited the site of the Project on October 18, 2021 and performed a reconnaissance level survey of wildlife utilizing the area of the Project. He was accompanied by Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with an M.S. degree from California State University Los Angeles. Ex. C, p. 1. Dr. Smallwood reconnoitered the area for 114 minutes. Id. During that visit, he observed the presence of 18 species of vertebrate wildlife at the Project site, two of which are special-status species. Id., see

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Table 1, Ex. C, p. 2. Most of the species he observed relevant to the Project’s impacts were bird species. Id.

Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Unfortunately, the FEIR proponents did not perform a survey for wildlife at the Project site because they claimed that suitable habitat for sensitive species or special-status species did not occur within the city. Ex. C at 6, DEIR at 5-7. Dr. Smallwood states that this erroneous conclusion is based on the FEIR’s incorrect determination that “(1) disturbance precludes the occurrence of special-status species, and (2) all special-status species depend solely on natural communities.” Ex. C at 6. Contrary to these incorrect assumptions, Dr. Smallwood explains that “many assignments of special status have been to species that occur only in California or whose geographic ranges are small or diminishing,” and “many special-status species occur in anthropogenic environments.” Id. A skewed baseline such as the one used by the City here ultimately “mislead(s) the public” by engendering inaccurate analyses of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and cumulative impacts for biological resources. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners, 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.

Dr. Smallwood notes that there are multiple databases that would have been useful to determine presence and likelihood of presence, such as eBird and iNaturalist.

Id. Dr. Smallwood reviewed these databases and found that the Project site “either occurs within the geographic ranges or [] occurs near where others have reported sightings of at least 67 special-status species of wildlife.” Id. at 6; see Table 2, Ex. C, p. 7-9. Of those species, 33 have been reportedly seen within 1 mile of the Project site. Id.

The occurrence of special-status species at or near the Project site warrants discussion and analysis in an EIR to ensure that any impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.

In addition to this failure to fully assess species occurrences, Dr. Smallwood found that the FEIR also relied on the erroneous presumption that impacts to biological resources occurred only to terrestrial habitats, thus overlooking an entire category of species that rely primarily on the aerosphere. Ex. C, p. 6-7. The FEIR neglected to consider this portion of habitat, and as a result, no attention was paid to the impacts the Project will have on avian species from collisions with the building’s windows and other structures. A Revised EIR is necessary to consider the species present in the aerosphere at the Project site.

2. The FEIR fails to account for the increased possibility of birdwindow collision mortality that will be caused by the project.

According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project will most likely have a significant impact

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

on birds as a result of window collisions. The City has not analyzed or mitigated these potential impacts to special-status birds.

Dr. Smallwood identifies the now widely-recognized impact of bird collisions with windows and other building structures:

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively . . .

Ex. C, p. 11. Dr. Smallwood’s site visit confirmed the presence of many bird species that would travel through the Project site’s air space. Id. He also notes that “many of the special-status species in Table 2 [of his comment] have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations.” Id.

In an effort to assess the scope of the Project’s impacts on bird species using the area, Dr. Smallwood has calculated an estimate of the number of bird fatalities that would result from collisions with the Project. Ex. C, p. 11-12. The FEIR provided renderings of the proposed Project’s building’s facades, which Dr. Smallwood used to estimate the extent of glass that would be used as 579 m2. Id. at 12. Based on Dr.

Smallwood’s own data and review of a number of scientific studies, the mean fatality rate of bird deaths per m2 of glass per year is 0.073. Id. He therefore estimates that the project could result in 42 bird deaths per year, a number which could be up to 3 times higher when accounting for fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers. Id. This death rate would continue every year until the structure were either renovated to reduce bird collisions, or was removed. Id. He concludes by stating that “[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 42 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts.” Id.

Dr. Smallwood provides detailed information about the types of factors that would contribute to a Project’s bird collision risks and available mitigation measures. Ex. C, p. 12-17. He recommends that these factors be used to draft “Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Santa Monica and [] ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project.” Id. at 12. As it stands, however, “the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk.” Id. at 15. Dr. Smallwood concludes that key additional information for impacts assessment and mitigation include “intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.” Id.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of November 3, 2021
Comment on Final Environmental Impact Report
1242 20th Street Wellness Center (SCH 2018011001)

Because this impact was not addressed in the FEIR and Dr. Smallwood has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project’s windows will impact birds, the City must prepare a Revised EIR to analyze and mitigate the impact of window collisions on bird species.

3. The FEIR failed to address the cumulative impacts of past, ongoing, and future projects on wildlife.

The FEIR failed to prepare an analysis of cumulative effects on wildlife, due to its erroneous conclusion that there was no suitable habitat for species on the Project site.

Ex. C, p. 17. Based on his observations of the project site, Dr. Smallwood concludes that “bird collision mortality is likely ongoing and of large magnitude, but nobody would know about it in the absence of fatality monitoring.” Id. He believes that the EIR should be revised “to not only include an analysis of the project’s potential impacts to bird mortality, but also of its contribution to cumulative impacts of bird-window collision mortality in the City of Santa Monica,” and that these impacts “should be addressed with the formulation of a city ordinance to guide building design, fatality monitoring, and compensatory mitigation.” Id.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER believes that the EIR is wholly inadequate.

SAFER urges the Community Development Department to refrain from recommending certification of the FEIR or recommending approval of the Project in order to allow staff additional time to address the concerns raised herein. Thank you for considering our comments and please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this project.

Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis

LOZEAU DRURY LLP

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

EXHIBIT
A

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: October 14, 2021
To: Amalia Bowley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 1242 20th St. Wellness Center Project, Santa Monica, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4509)
Pages: 18
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 of 18
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 of 18
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the 1242 20th St. Wellness Center Project, Santa Monica, CA the buildings consist of commercial spaces.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 of 18
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 of 18
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 of 18

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 of 18
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 8 of 18

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶!" = #!"!#$
$"#
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 9 of 18
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 10 of 18
concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The 1242 20th St. Wellness Center Project, Santa Monica, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., 20th Street, Arizona Avenue, 19th Street, Wilshire Boulevard etc.) as well as air traffic from the Santa Monica Airport, and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the 1242 20th St. Wellness Center Project, Santa Monica, CA – Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dudek, 20209), the existing project traffic noise levels reported in Table 4.9-5, range from 55 dBA to 67 dBA CNEL.

As a result of the anticipated high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5.

According to the 1242 20th St. Wellness Center Project, Santa Monica, CA – Draft

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 11 of 18
Environmental Impact Report (Dudek, 20209), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 12 of 18
made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 13 of 18
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 14 of 18
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Dudek. 2020. 1242 20th St. Wellness Center Project, Santa Monica, CA – Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 15 of 18
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 16 of 18

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 17 of 18
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry,

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 18 of 18
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA.

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present.

Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.

Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.

Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building.

Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index.

Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.

Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California.

Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987.

Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.

Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984.

Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).

Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.

Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR).

Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.

Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations.

Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.

Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980.

Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director.

Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.

Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists

SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993.

Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.

Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.

Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.

Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.

Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.

SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.

Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters.

Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.

Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993.

Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death.

Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.

Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.

Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.

Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.

Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from ecigarettes.

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :

F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.

W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.

W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).

F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989.

F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.

R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990.

S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.

F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).

F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.

F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.

S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.

Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.

Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.

L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.

F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.

Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.

F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.

F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.

R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.

Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 10 OTHER REPORTS:

W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.

R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.

A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.

R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984.

K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a SemiConductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.

A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990.

F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.

S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998.

F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.

F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.

L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.

PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.

"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998.

ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.

Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

EXHIBIT
B

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 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]
November 2, 2021
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (SCH No. 2018011001) Dear Ms. Fuentes,
We have reviewed the October 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and December 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Monica (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 54,000-SF of research and development (R&D) space, 18,812-SF of clinic/medical office space, and 743-SF of related support space, as well as 275 parking spaces, on the 1.03-acre site.

Our review concludes that the FEIR 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 updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The FEIR’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4.2-30).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input 1 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2 project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations and Health Risk Assessment (“AQ & GHG Report”) as Appendix B to the FEIR, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the FEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As such, an updated EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” models include a manual reduction to the default acres of grading value (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 121, 160, 195, 259).

As you can see from the excerpt above, the acres of grading value was reduced by approximately 98%, from the default value of 60.38- to 1.5-acres.As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the “User Entered Comments & NonDefault Data” table, the justification provided for this change is: “58,000 cy soil exported” (Appendix B, pp. 120, 159, 194, 258). Furthermore, the FEIR indicates that the Project site is 1.03 acres (p. 1-1).

However, these justifications remain insufficient for two reasons.

First, the justification provided by the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table only references the amount of required material export, not the revised acres of grading value.

Second, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation, only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres is based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.”3
2 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 3 “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.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 3 As demonstrated above, the acres of grading value is based on construction equipment and the length of the grading or site preparation phase. Thus, as the dimensions of the Project site have no impact on the acres of grading value, we cannot verify the revised acres of grading value.

This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading value to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.4 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the default acres of grading value, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Off-Road Construction Equipment Usage Hours Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” models include several reductions to the default off-road construction equipment usage hours (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 121, 160, 195, 260).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.5 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “See 3.0 Construction Detail” (Appendix B, pp. 120, 159, 194, 258).

Furthermore, the FEIR provides the following construction scenario assumptions (p. 4.2-32, Table 4.2-8):
4 “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. 5 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 4 However, these justifications remain insufficient for two reasons.

First, the source provided for the assumed construction equipment usage hours is Appendix B, the CalEEMod output files themselves. This is incorrect, as the Project documents should substantiate the changes included in the CalEEMod model, not vice versa. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA” (emphasis added).6
Here, as the FEIR fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised usage hours, we cannot verify the changes.

Second, the FEIR states:
“It was assumed that all equipment used during each construction subphase would be operating 8 hours per day, 5 days per week” (p. 4.2-31).

As such, the information provided in the Construction Scenario Assumptions table is inconsistent with the FEIR. Thus, the revised off-road construction usage hours are incorrect and underestimated within the model.
6 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 5 These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the off-road equipment input parameters to calculate the emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.7 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment usage hours, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Substantiate Demolition and Reduction to Number of Demolition Hauling Trips Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” and “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” models include 164 demolition hauling trips (Appendix B, pp. 126, 165, 200, 264).

Furthermore, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the models include a manual reduction to the number of demolition hauling trips from the default value of 924- to 164-trips (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 122, 161, 196, 260).

However, the number of demolition hauling trips is unsubstantiated. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“Haul trips are based on the amount of material that is demolished, imported or exported assuming a truck can handle 16 cubic yards of material.”8 Therefore, CalEEMod calculates a default number of hauling trips based upon the amount of demolition material inputted into the model. However, the FEIR fails to disclose the specific square footage of 7 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 32. 8 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 6 facilities to be demolished or the tons of debris resulting from this demolition. Specifically, regarding the amount of demolition required for Project construction, FEIR states:
“Implementation of the proposed project would require demolition of the following:
• 1-story rear parking garage (adjacent to 19th Court) of the GKGM Building • 2-story, 7-unit building
• 2-story, 3-unit building
• surface parking lot, subterranean utilities, and four driveway curb cuts adjacent to 20th Street and one driveway curb cut adjacent to Arizona Avenue • removal of stone veneer along the Arizona Avenue-facing side of the administrative portion of GKGM Building
• removal of exterior door along the interior driveway side of the administrative portion of GKGM Building
• a portion of the internal walkway adjacent to the former chapel of the GKGM building” (p. 3-13).

Thus, as the FEIR fails to specify any amount demolition, we cannot verify that the default hauling trip number of 924 trips is the result of the correct input of demolition. As such, demolition may be underestimated in the model. Furthermore, the FEIR fails to mention or justify the reduction to the default demolition hauling trip number whatsoever. As a result, the revised value of 164 trips also remains unsupported.

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 removal of debris, and on-site truck traffic on paved and unpaved road.9 By failing to include the total amount of required demolition, the models underestimate emissions associated with fugitive dust, debris 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.

Unsubstantiated Worker and Vendor Trip Numbers
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Santa Monica Wellness Center” model includes several changes to the default vendor and worker trip numbers (see excerpts below) (Appendix B, pp. 122, 161, 196).
9 CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix A, p. 11, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 7 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.10 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Revised haul trips to include pavement demolition trips. Assumed 10 CY per load resulting in 11,600 haul trips. Rounded up number of trips. Assumed two water trucks during grading” (Appendix B, pp. 120, 159, 194).

However, these changes remain unsupported for three reasons.

First, the justification provided by the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table only references hauling trips, not worker or vendor trips.

Second, the FEIR indicates that “[a]n estimated 4 to 39 construction workers would be on-site at any one time” (p. 3-13). As such, in order to conduct the most conservative analysis, the model should have accounted for the potential of all 39 workers being present on the Project site. Thus, the model should have included 78 one-way worker trips during all phases of construction.

Third, the FEIR fails to mention or justify revised vendor trip numbers whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 11
Here, as the FEIR and associated documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the revised vendor trip numbers, we cannot verify the changes.
10 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 11 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 12.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 8 These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the vendor and worker trip numbers to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default vendor and worker trip numbers, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Model Material Export
Regarding the material import and export required for Project construction, the FEIR states:
“Excavation is anticipated to generate approximately 58,000 cubic yards of soil that would be exported via haul truck trips” (p. 3-13).

As such, the Project should have included 58,000 cubic yards (“cy”) of material export in the model.

However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Santa Monica Wellness Center - Construction HRA” model fails to include any amount of material export (Appendix B, pp. 258-261). As such, the material export required for Project construction is underestimated and the model is inconsistent with the FEIR.

This underestimation presents an issue, as the inclusion of material export within the model is necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, including truck loading/unloading and additional hauling truck trips.13 Thus, by failing to include the amount of material export required for Project construction, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The FEIR estimates that the mitigated excess cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 7.23 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 4.2-51, Table 4.2-14). 12 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 34. 13 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 3, 26.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 9 Furthermore, regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the FEIR states:
“Operational TAC impacts could occur if the project would generate significant sources of operational TACs including diesel particulate matter. […] The proposed project would develop a Wellness Center with research & development and clinical/medical office space. Given the research & development and clinical/medical office uses, project operations would generate minimal number of delivery trucks (associated with trash, supply deliveries, etc.) per day. Daily truck trips would not exceed 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units. Furthermore, trucks are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Truck and Bus regulation to minimize and reduce PM and NOX emissions from existing diesel trucks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant” (p. 4.2-48).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because the minimal number of daily trucks trips and compliance with CARB regulations would not result in significant toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. However, the FEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-thansignificant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.

First, the FEIR’s construction HRA is incorrect. As indicated by the Health Risk Assessment Report (“HRA Report”), provided within Appendix B to the FEIR, the construction relies upon exhaust PM10 emissions estimates from a flawed air model (p. 9). As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ & GHG Report as Appendix B to the FEIR, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the FEIR.

As a result, the HRA utilizes an underestimated diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. As such, the FEIR’s construction HRA underestimates the Project’s cancer risk and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 10 impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Despite the FEIR’s claim that Project operation would not exceed 100 daily truck trips, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that Project operation will in fact generate approximately 100 weekday truck trips, 14 which would generate
additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (Appendix B, pp. 149-150, 188-189, 223-224). The FEIR’s vague discussion of potential TACs associated with Project operation fails to indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in TAC emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015, as referenced by the FEIR (p. 4.2-47).15 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”).16 Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more.

Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. This recommendation reflects the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project operation be included in an updated EIR for the Project.

Fourth, while the FEIR includes an HRA evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance, as referenced by the FEIR, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location” (p. 4.2-47).17 However, the FEIR’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is incorrect and thus, an updated analysis should quantify the entirety of the Project’s construction and operational health risks, and then sum them to compare to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the FEIR (p. 4.2-29, Table 4.2-6). 14 Calculated: (1,286.75 weekday vehicle trips) * (0.014562 LHD1 + 0.005806 LHD2 + 0.021810 MDV + 0.035336 HHD truck fleet mix) = ~100 total weekday truck trips.
15 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15 17 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 11 Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model.18 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA19 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)20 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors using the Project’s net annual PM10 exhaust estimates. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.

Subtracting the 676-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 28.15 years, approximately. The FEIR’s annual CalEEMod output file indicates that operational activities will generate approximately 25 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.21 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project operation, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 25.4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000365 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 1.03-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with approximate dimensions of 91 by 46 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 18 U.S. EPA (April 2011) AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 19 OEHHA (February 2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 20 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 21 See Attachment A for calculations.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 12 concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.22 According to the FEIR, the nearest sensitive receptors are multi-family residences located approximately 20 feet, or 6 meters, from the Project (p. 4.3-1). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed receptor is located approximately 50 meters, or 160 feet, from the Project site. As such, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project operation is approximately 1.909 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1909 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as referenced by the FEIR (p. 4.2-47). Consistent with the 676-day construction schedule utilized in the Project’s CalEEMod output files, the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the latter 0.4 years of the infant stage of life (0 – 2 years), as well as the entire childhood (2 – 16 years) and the adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life.

Consistent with the FEIR’s construction HRA, provided in the HRA Report, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASFs”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution (p. 6). When applying ASFs, the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the infant (0 – 2 years) stage of life, and a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 – 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.23 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) Value of 1 for the infant and child receptors, and 0.73 for the adult receptors.24 We also 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.
22 “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. 23 SCAQMD (Jun 2015) Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act, p. 19, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6;. 24 “Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/ProposedRules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 13 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions
Source
Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-day)
Cancer Risk
(without ASFs*) ASF Cancer Risk(with ASFs*)
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * 361 * 10 *
Construction 1.60 * 1090 *
Operation 0.40 0.1909 1090 1.25E-06
Infant
(Age 0 - 2) Total 2 1.25E-06 10 1.25E-05
Child
(Age 2 - 16) Operation 14 0.1909 572 2.30E-05 3 6.91E-05 Adult
(Age 16 - 30) Operation 14 0.1909 261 7.67E-06 1 7.67E-06 Lifetime 30 3.20E-05 8.93E-05
* Construction cancer risk calculated separately in the FEIR.

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 12.5,

69.1, and 7.67 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with the Project operation over the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 89.3 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the FEIR’s construction-related cancer risk of 7.23 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 96.5 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) (p. 4.2-51, Table 4.2-14). 25 As such, the 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 FEIR.

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. 26 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, an updated EIR should be prepared and include updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined HRA which 25 Calculated: 89.3 in one million + 7.23 in one million = 96.5 in one million. 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, p. 1-5

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 14 adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 1,147.12 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 4.6-35, Table 4.6-4).

However, the FEIR elects not to compare emissions to a threshold. Instead, the FEIR relies upon the Project’s consistency with the CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City of Santa Monica’s LUCE, Sustainable City Plan, Green Building and Energy Code, and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p.

4.6-35 - 4.6-43). However, the FEIR’s GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons:
(1) The FEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The FEIR’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact; (3) The FEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan; and (4) The FEIR fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,147.12 MT CO2e/year (p. 4.6-35, Table 4.6-4). However, the FEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ & GHG Report as Appendix B to the FEIR, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the FEIR. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the FEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An updated EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 15 2) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by the FEIR, to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.27 When applying this threshold, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. 28 As
previously stated, the FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,147.12 MT CO2e/year (p. 4.6-35, Table 4.6-4). Furthermore, according to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”29 The FEIR estimates that the Project would employ approximately 206 people (p. 3-12). As the Project does not include any residential land uses, we estimate a service population of 206 people.
30 When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the FEIR, by a service population of 100 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 5.57 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).31
Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita,
Exceedances under SCAQMD 2035 Service Population Efficiency Target Source FEIR Model
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 1,147.12
Service Population 206
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 5.57
2035 SCAQMD Target (MT CO2e/SP/year) 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the FEIR’s provided net annual GHG emission estimates and service population, exceed the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the FEIR. As a result, the FEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An updated EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels. 27 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 28 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 29 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 30 Calculated: 0 residents + 206 employees = 206 service population. 31 Calculated: (1147.12 MT CO2e/year) / (206 service population) = (5.57 MT CO2e/SP/year).

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 16 3) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed, the FEIR relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan to determine Project GHG significance (p. 4.6-35 - 4.6-43). However, this is incorrect, as the FEIR fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB.
i. Passenger & Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.32 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a “baseline scenario” that includes “current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.”33 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2025 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita
Los Angeles County State
Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 9,838,771 216,979,221.64 22.05 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2025 10,671,800 217,340,094.90 20.37 42,326,397 929,443,512.65 21.96 2030 10,868,614 215,539,586.12 19.83 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the FEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performancebased daily VMT per capita projections, the FEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 4) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Here, as discussed above, the FEIR concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (p. 4.6-35 - 4.6-43). However, the FEIR fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific performance-based goals underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled (“VMT”) per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals
SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger 32 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” CARB, November 2017, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, p. 25, 98, 101-103. 33 “Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,” Excel Sheet “Readme.” CARB, January 2019, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/sp_mss_vmt_calculations_jan19_0.xlsx.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 17 vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035. This goal is reflected in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below). 34 As the FEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s per capita emissions, the FEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.
i. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target
Under the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.35 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from

22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.36 Here, however, the FEIR fails to consider any of the abovementioned performance-based VMT targets. As the FEIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the FEIR’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.

Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. We recommend that the FEIR implement all sustainability 34 “Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618, p. 3.8-74. 35 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 36 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 18 design features, such as energy efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, the installation of a PV system, and low-flow water fixtures, as formal mitigation measures. As a result, we could guarantee that these measures would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

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

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0104
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.0695
Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000364875
Release Height (meters)3
Total Acreage 1.03
Max Horizontal (meters) 91.30
Min Horizontal (meters) 45.65
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Setting Urban
Population 91,577
Total DPM (lbs) 25.3675
Total Pounds of DPM
Operation
Emission Rate
Attachment A 6.A.c
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Start date and time  10/26/21 15:16:48
AERSCREEN 21112
Santa Monica Wellness Center
Santa Monica Wellness Center
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  DATA ENTRY VALIDATION  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ METRIC              ENGLISH
** AREADATA **  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate:    0.365E‐03 g/s 0.290E‐02 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length:   91.30 meters 299.54 feet
Area Source Width:    45.65 meters 149.77 feet
Vertical Dimension:    1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 91577
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment B 6.A.c
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 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/ 310.0K   ‐9.7/  98.3 DegF

Minimum Wind Speed:     0.5 m/s

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

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:

2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation.out

*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin

No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run

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

SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET

Obtaining surface characteristics...

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

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 10/26/21 15:21:48

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

Running AERMOD

Processing Winter

Processing surface roughness sector  1

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

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

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   0

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector   5

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  10

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

***  NONE  ***

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of *****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  15

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  20

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  25

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

***  NONE  ***

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector  30

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

***  NONE  ***

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

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   ********

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector   5

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  10

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  15

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  20

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  25

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector  30

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Running AERMOD

Processing Summer

Processing surface roughness sector  1

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of *****************************************************

Processing wind flow sector   1

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   0

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector   5

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  10

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

***  NONE  ***

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  15

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  20

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  25

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   7

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector  30

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

***  NONE  ***

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

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   ********

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   2

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector   5

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of ********   WARNING MESSAGES   ********

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   3

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  10

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   4

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  15

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   5

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  20

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of ***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   6

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  25

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

***  NONE  ***

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

Processing wind flow sector   7

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector  30

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

***  NONE  ***

FLOWSECTOR   ended 10/26/21 15:21:54

REFINE       started 10/26/21 15:21:54

AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector   0

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

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of ***  NONE  ***

REFINE       ended 10/26/21 15:21:55

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

AERSCREEN Finished Successfully

With no errors or warnings

Check log file for details

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

Ending date and time  10/26/21 15:21:57

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM] 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

0.14448E+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

0.14409E+01 1.00 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

0.14295E+01 1.00 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

0.14110E+01 1.00 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

0.13861E+01 1.00 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

0.13554E+01 1.00 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

0.13198E+01 1.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14448E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14409E+01 1.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14295E+01 1.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14110E+01 1.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13861E+01 1.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13554E+01 1.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13198E+01 1.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14448E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14409E+01 1.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14295E+01 1.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14110E+01 1.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13861E+01 1.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13554E+01 1.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13198E+01 1.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14448E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14409E+01 1.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14295E+01 1.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14110E+01 1.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13861E+01 1.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13554E+01 1.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13198E+01 1.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17545E+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

0.17502E+01 25.00 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

0.17449E+01 25.00 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

0.17359E+01 25.00 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

0.17237E+01 25.00 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

0.17087E+01 25.00 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

0.16913E+01 25.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17545E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17502E+01 25.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17449E+01 25.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17359E+01 25.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17237E+01 25.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17087E+01 25.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16913E+01 25.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17545E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17502E+01 25.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17449E+01 25.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17359E+01 25.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17237E+01 25.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17087E+01 25.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16913E+01 25.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17545E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17502E+01 25.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17449E+01 25.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17359E+01 25.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17237E+01 25.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.17087E+01 25.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16913E+01 25.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18667E+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

0.18682E+01 50.00 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

0.18541E+01 50.00 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

0.18805E+01 50.00 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

0.19090E+01 50.00 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

0.18661E+01 50.00 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

0.16659E+01 50.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18667E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18682E+01 50.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18541E+01 50.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18805E+01 50.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19090E+01 50.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18661E+01 50.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16659E+01 50.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18667E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18682E+01 50.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18541E+01 50.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18805E+01 50.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19090E+01 50.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18661E+01 50.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16659E+01 50.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18667E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18682E+01 50.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18541E+01 50.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18805E+01 50.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.19090E+01 50.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18661E+01 50.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16659E+01 50.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10380E+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

0.10377E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10336E+01 75.00 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

0.10293E+01 75.00 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

0.10217E+01 75.00 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

0.10051E+01 75.00 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

0.97264E+00 75.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10380E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10377E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10336E+01 75.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10293E+01 75.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10217E+01 75.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10051E+01 75.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.97264E+00 75.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10380E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10377E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10336E+01 75.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10293E+01 75.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10217E+01 75.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10051E+01 75.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.97264E+00 75.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10380E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10377E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10336E+01 75.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10293E+01 75.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10217E+01 75.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10051E+01 75.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.97264E+00 75.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68582E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68488E+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

0.68145E+00 100.00 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

0.67539E+00 100.00 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

0.66686E+00 100.00 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

0.65438E+00 100.00 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

0.63785E+00 100.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68582E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68488E+00 100.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68145E+00 100.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67539E+00 100.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66686E+00 100.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65438E+00 100.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63785E+00 100.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68582E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68488E+00 100.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68145E+00 100.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67539E+00 100.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66686E+00 100.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65438E+00 100.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63785E+00 100.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68582E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68488E+00 100.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68145E+00 100.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67539E+00 100.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.66686E+00 100.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.65438E+00 100.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63785E+00 100.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49923E+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

0.49866E+00 125.00 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

0.49629E+00 125.00 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

0.49234E+00 125.00 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

0.48654E+00 125.00 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

0.47905E+00 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46978E+00 125.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49923E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49866E+00 125.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49629E+00 125.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49234E+00 125.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48654E+00 125.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47905E+00 125.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46978E+00 125.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49923E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49866E+00 125.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49629E+00 125.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49234E+00 125.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48654E+00 125.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47905E+00 125.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46978E+00 125.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49923E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49866E+00 125.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49629E+00 125.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.49234E+00 125.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48654E+00 125.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.47905E+00 125.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46978E+00 125.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38623E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38583E+00 150.00 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

0.38419E+00 150.00 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

0.38162E+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

0.37793E+00 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37300E+00 150.00 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

0.36733E+00 150.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38623E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38583E+00 150.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38419E+00 150.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38162E+00 150.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37793E+00 150.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37300E+00 150.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36733E+00 150.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38623E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38583E+00 150.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38419E+00 150.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38162E+00 150.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37793E+00 150.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37300E+00 150.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36733E+00 150.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38623E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38583E+00 150.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38419E+00 150.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38162E+00 150.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37793E+00 150.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.37300E+00 150.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36733E+00 150.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31139E+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

0.31109E+00 175.00 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

0.31001E+00 175.00 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

0.30811E+00 175.00 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

0.30563E+00 175.00 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

0.30240E+00 175.00 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

0.29867E+00 175.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31139E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31109E+00 175.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31001E+00 175.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30811E+00 175.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30563E+00 175.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30240E+00 175.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29867E+00 175.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31139E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31109E+00 175.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31001E+00 175.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30811E+00 175.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30563E+00 175.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30240E+00 175.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29867E+00 175.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31139E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31109E+00 175.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31001E+00 175.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30811E+00 175.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30563E+00 175.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30240E+00 175.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.29867E+00 175.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25861E+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

0.25837E+00 200.00 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

0.25754E+00 200.00 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

0.25638E+00 200.00 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

0.25444E+00 200.00 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

0.25229E+00 200.00 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

0.24965E+00 200.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25861E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25837E+00 200.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25754E+00 200.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25638E+00 200.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25444E+00 200.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25229E+00 200.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24965E+00 200.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25861E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25837E+00 200.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25754E+00 200.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25638E+00 200.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25444E+00 200.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25229E+00 200.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24965E+00 200.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25861E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25837E+00 200.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25754E+00 200.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25638E+00 200.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25444E+00 200.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.25229E+00 200.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.24965E+00 200.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21963E+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

0.21950E+00 225.00 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

0.21893E+00 225.00 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

0.21791E+00 225.00 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

0.21667E+00 225.00 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

0.21504E+00 225.00 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

0.21310E+00 225.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21963E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21950E+00 225.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21893E+00 225.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21791E+00 225.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21667E+00 225.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21504E+00 225.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21310E+00 225.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21963E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21950E+00 225.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21893E+00 225.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21791E+00 225.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21667E+00 225.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21504E+00 225.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21310E+00 225.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21963E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21950E+00 225.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21893E+00 225.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21791E+00 225.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21667E+00 225.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21504E+00 225.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.21310E+00 225.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18991E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18970E+00 250.00 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

0.18930E+00 250.00 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

0.18858E+00 250.00 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

0.18759E+00 250.00 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

0.18640E+00 250.00 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

0.18493E+00 250.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18991E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18970E+00 250.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18930E+00 250.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18858E+00 250.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18759E+00 250.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18640E+00 250.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18493E+00 250.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18991E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18970E+00 250.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18930E+00 250.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18858E+00 250.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18759E+00 250.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18640E+00 250.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18493E+00 250.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18991E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18970E+00 250.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18930E+00 250.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18858E+00 250.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18759E+00 250.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18640E+00 250.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.18493E+00 250.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16646E+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

0.16638E+00 275.00 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

0.16599E+00 275.00 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

0.16548E+00 275.00 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

0.16469E+00 275.00 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

0.16381E+00 275.00 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

0.16268E+00 275.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16646E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16638E+00 275.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16599E+00 275.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16548E+00 275.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16469E+00 275.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16381E+00 275.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16268E+00 275.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16646E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16638E+00 275.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16599E+00 275.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16548E+00 275.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16469E+00 275.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16381E+00 275.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16268E+00 275.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16646E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16638E+00 275.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16599E+00 275.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16548E+00 275.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16469E+00 275.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16381E+00 275.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.16268E+00 275.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14765E+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

0.14755E+00 300.00 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

0.14728E+00 300.00 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

0.14683E+00 300.00 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

0.14627E+00 300.00 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

0.14550E+00 300.00 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

0.14463E+00 300.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14765E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14755E+00 300.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14728E+00 300.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14683E+00 300.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14627E+00 300.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14550E+00 300.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14463E+00 300.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14765E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14755E+00 300.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14728E+00 300.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14683E+00 300.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14627E+00 300.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14550E+00 300.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14463E+00 300.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14765E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14755E+00 300.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14728E+00 300.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14683E+00 300.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14627E+00 300.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14550E+00 300.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.14463E+00 300.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13224E+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

0.13215E+00 325.00 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

0.13193E+00 325.00 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

0.13157E+00 325.00 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

0.13114E+00 325.00 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

0.13052E+00 325.00 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

0.12983E+00 325.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13224E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13215E+00 325.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13193E+00 325.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13157E+00 325.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13114E+00 325.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13052E+00 325.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12983E+00 325.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13224E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13215E+00 325.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13193E+00 325.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13157E+00 325.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13114E+00 325.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13052E+00 325.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12983E+00 325.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13224E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13215E+00 325.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13193E+00 325.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13157E+00 325.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13114E+00 325.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.13052E+00 325.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.12983E+00 325.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11937E+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

0.11936E+00 350.00 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

0.11919E+00 350.00 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

0.11887E+00 350.00 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

0.11851E+00 350.00 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

0.11802E+00 350.00 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

0.11748E+00 350.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11937E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11936E+00 350.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11919E+00 350.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11887E+00 350.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11851E+00 350.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11802E+00 350.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11748E+00 350.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11937E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11936E+00 350.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11919E+00 350.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11887E+00 350.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11851E+00 350.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11802E+00 350.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11748E+00 350.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11937E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11936E+00 350.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11919E+00 350.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11887E+00 350.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11851E+00 350.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11802E+00 350.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.11748E+00 350.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10856E+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

0.10854E+00 375.00 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

0.10841E+00 375.00 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

0.10818E+00 375.00 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

0.10784E+00 375.00 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

0.10743E+00 375.00 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

0.10699E+00 375.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10856E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10854E+00 375.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10841E+00 375.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10818E+00 375.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10784E+00 375.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10743E+00 375.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10699E+00 375.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10856E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10854E+00 375.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10841E+00 375.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10818E+00 375.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10784E+00 375.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10743E+00 375.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10699E+00 375.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10856E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10854E+00 375.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10841E+00 375.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10818E+00 375.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10784E+00 375.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10743E+00 375.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.10699E+00 375.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99359E-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

0.99317E-01 400.00 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

0.99211E-01 400.00 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

0.99050E-01 400.00 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

0.98753E-01 400.00 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

0.98391E-01 400.00 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

0.98014E-01 400.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99359E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99317E-01 400.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99211E-01 400.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99050E-01 400.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98753E-01 400.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98391E-01 400.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98014E-01 400.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99359E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99317E-01 400.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99211E-01 400.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99050E-01 400.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98753E-01 400.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98391E-01 400.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98014E-01 400.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99359E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99317E-01 400.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99211E-01 400.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.99050E-01 400.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98753E-01 400.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98391E-01 400.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.98014E-01 400.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91426E-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

0.91370E-01 425.00 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

0.91274E-01 425.00 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

0.91172E-01 425.00 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

0.90930E-01 425.00 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

0.90615E-01 425.00 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

0.90279E-01 425.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91426E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91370E-01 425.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91274E-01 425.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91172E-01 425.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90930E-01 425.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90615E-01 425.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90279E-01 425.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91426E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91370E-01 425.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91274E-01 425.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91172E-01 425.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90930E-01 425.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90615E-01 425.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90279E-01 425.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91426E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91370E-01 425.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91274E-01 425.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.91172E-01 425.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90930E-01 425.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90615E-01 425.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.90279E-01 425.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84530E-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

0.84472E-01 450.00 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

0.84387E-01 450.00 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

0.84286E-01 450.00 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

0.84100E-01 450.00 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

0.83859E-01 450.00 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

0.83557E-01 450.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84530E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84472E-01 450.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84387E-01 450.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84286E-01 450.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84100E-01 450.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83859E-01 450.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83557E-01 450.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84530E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84472E-01 450.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84387E-01 450.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84286E-01 450.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84100E-01 450.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83859E-01 450.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83557E-01 450.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84530E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84472E-01 450.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84387E-01 450.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84286E-01 450.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.84100E-01 450.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83859E-01 450.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.83557E-01 450.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78475E-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

0.78441E-01 475.00 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

0.78363E-01 475.00 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

0.78261E-01 475.00 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

0.78088E-01 475.00 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

0.77912E-01 475.00 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

0.77675E-01 475.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78475E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78441E-01 475.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78363E-01 475.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78261E-01 475.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78088E-01 475.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77912E-01 475.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77675E-01 475.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78475E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78441E-01 475.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78363E-01 475.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78261E-01 475.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78088E-01 475.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77912E-01 475.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77675E-01 475.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78475E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78441E-01 475.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78363E-01 475.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78261E-01 475.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.78088E-01 475.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77912E-01 475.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.77675E-01 475.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73123E-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

0.73110E-01 500.00 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

0.73056E-01 500.00 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

0.72943E-01 500.00 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

0.72785E-01 500.00 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

0.72636E-01 500.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72452E-01 500.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73123E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73110E-01 500.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73056E-01 500.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72943E-01 500.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72785E-01 500.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72636E-01 500.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72452E-01 500.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73123E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73110E-01 500.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73056E-01 500.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72943E-01 500.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72785E-01 500.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72636E-01 500.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72452E-01 500.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73123E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73110E-01 500.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.73056E-01 500.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72943E-01 500.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72785E-01 500.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72636E-01 500.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.72452E-01 500.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68378E-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

0.68383E-01 525.00 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

0.68348E-01 525.00 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

0.68227E-01 525.00 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

0.68084E-01 525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67946E-01 525.00 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

0.67783E-01 525.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68378E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68383E-01 525.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68348E-01 525.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68227E-01 525.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68084E-01 525.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67946E-01 525.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67783E-01 525.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68378E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68383E-01 525.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68348E-01 525.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68227E-01 525.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68084E-01 525.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67946E-01 525.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67783E-01 525.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68378E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68383E-01 525.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68348E-01 525.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68227E-01 525.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.68084E-01 525.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67946E-01 525.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.67783E-01 525.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64146E-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

0.64150E-01 550.00 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

0.64133E-01 550.00 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

0.64019E-01 550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63891E-01 550.00 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

0.63762E-01 550.00 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

0.63618E-01 550.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64146E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64150E-01 550.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64133E-01 550.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64019E-01 550.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63891E-01 550.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63762E-01 550.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63618E-01 550.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64146E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64150E-01 550.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64133E-01 550.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64019E-01 550.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63891E-01 550.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63762E-01 550.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63618E-01 550.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64146E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64150E-01 550.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64133E-01 550.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.64019E-01 550.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63891E-01 550.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63762E-01 550.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.63618E-01 550.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60353E-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

0.60357E-01 575.00 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

0.60349E-01 575.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60246E-01 575.00 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

0.60128E-01 575.00 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

0.60009E-01 575.00 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

0.59874E-01 575.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60353E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60357E-01 575.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60349E-01 575.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60246E-01 575.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60128E-01 575.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60009E-01 575.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59874E-01 575.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60353E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60357E-01 575.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60349E-01 575.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60246E-01 575.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60128E-01 575.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60009E-01 575.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59874E-01 575.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60353E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60357E-01 575.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60349E-01 575.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60246E-01 575.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60128E-01 575.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.60009E-01 575.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.59874E-01 575.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56935E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56939E-01 600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56920E-01 600.00 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

0.56841E-01 600.00 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

0.56737E-01 600.00 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

0.56629E-01 600.00 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

0.56499E-01 600.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56935E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56939E-01 600.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56920E-01 600.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56841E-01 600.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56737E-01 600.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56629E-01 600.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56499E-01 600.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56935E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56939E-01 600.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56920E-01 600.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56841E-01 600.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56737E-01 600.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56629E-01 600.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56499E-01 600.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56935E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56939E-01 600.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56920E-01 600.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56841E-01 600.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56737E-01 600.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56629E-01 600.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.56499E-01 600.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53842E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53846E-01 625.00 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

0.53814E-01 625.00 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

0.53754E-01 625.00 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

0.53669E-01 625.00 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

0.53567E-01 625.00 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

0.53445E-01 625.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53842E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53846E-01 625.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53814E-01 625.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53754E-01 625.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53669E-01 625.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53567E-01 625.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53445E-01 625.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53842E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53846E-01 625.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53814E-01 625.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53754E-01 625.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53669E-01 625.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53567E-01 625.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53445E-01 625.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53842E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53846E-01 625.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53814E-01 625.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53754E-01 625.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53669E-01 625.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53567E-01 625.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.53445E-01 625.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-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

0.51032E-01 650.00 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

0.50993E-01 650.00 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

0.50938E-01 650.00 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

0.50875E-01 650.00 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

0.50785E-01 650.00 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

0.50670E-01 650.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-01 650.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50993E-01 650.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50938E-01 650.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50875E-01 650.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50785E-01 650.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50670E-01 650.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-01 650.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50993E-01 650.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50938E-01 650.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50875E-01 650.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50785E-01 650.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50670E-01 650.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.51032E-01 650.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50993E-01 650.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50938E-01 650.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50875E-01 650.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50785E-01 650.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.50670E-01 650.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48469E-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

0.48464E-01 675.00 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

0.48419E-01 675.00 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

0.48369E-01 675.00 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

0.48320E-01 675.00 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

0.48245E-01 675.00 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

0.48139E-01 675.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48469E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48464E-01 675.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48419E-01 675.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48369E-01 675.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48320E-01 675.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48245E-01 675.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48139E-01 675.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48469E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48464E-01 675.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48419E-01 675.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48369E-01 675.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48320E-01 675.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48245E-01 675.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48139E-01 675.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48469E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48464E-01 675.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48419E-01 675.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48369E-01 675.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48320E-01 675.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48245E-01 675.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.48139E-01 675.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46124E-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

0.46110E-01 700.00 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

0.46064E-01 700.00 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

0.46017E-01 700.00 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

0.45971E-01 700.00 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

0.45914E-01 700.00 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

0.45821E-01 700.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46124E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46110E-01 700.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46064E-01 700.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46017E-01 700.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45971E-01 700.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45914E-01 700.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45821E-01 700.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46124E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46110E-01 700.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46064E-01 700.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46017E-01 700.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45971E-01 700.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45914E-01 700.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45821E-01 700.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46124E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46110E-01 700.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46064E-01 700.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.46017E-01 700.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45971E-01 700.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45914E-01 700.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.45821E-01 700.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43970E-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

0.43946E-01 725.00 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

0.43903E-01 725.00 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

0.43859E-01 725.00 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

0.43816E-01 725.00 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

0.43767E-01 725.00 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

0.43694E-01 725.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43970E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43946E-01 725.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43903E-01 725.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43859E-01 725.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43816E-01 725.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43767E-01 725.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43694E-01 725.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43970E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43946E-01 725.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43903E-01 725.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43859E-01 725.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43816E-01 725.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43767E-01 725.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43694E-01 725.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43970E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43946E-01 725.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43903E-01 725.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43859E-01 725.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43816E-01 725.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43767E-01 725.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.43694E-01 725.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41986E-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

0.41951E-01 750.00 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

0.41910E-01 750.00 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

0.41870E-01 750.00 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

0.41828E-01 750.00 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

0.41781E-01 750.00 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

0.41723E-01 750.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41986E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41951E-01 750.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41910E-01 750.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41870E-01 750.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41828E-01 750.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41781E-01 750.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41723E-01 750.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41986E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41951E-01 750.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41910E-01 750.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41870E-01 750.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41828E-01 750.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41781E-01 750.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41723E-01 750.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41986E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41951E-01 750.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41910E-01 750.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41870E-01 750.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41828E-01 750.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41781E-01 750.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.41723E-01 750.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40143E-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

0.40110E-01 775.00 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

0.40070E-01 775.00 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

0.40033E-01 775.00 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

0.39994E-01 775.00 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

0.39947E-01 775.00 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

0.39895E-01 775.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40143E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40110E-01 775.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40070E-01 775.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40033E-01 775.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39994E-01 775.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39947E-01 775.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39895E-01 775.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40143E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40110E-01 775.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40070E-01 775.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40033E-01 775.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39994E-01 775.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39947E-01 775.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39895E-01 775.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40143E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40110E-01 775.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40070E-01 775.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.40033E-01 775.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39994E-01 775.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39947E-01 775.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.39895E-01 775.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38437E-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

0.38404E-01 800.00 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

0.38367E-01 800.00 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

0.38332E-01 800.00 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

0.38295E-01 800.00 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

0.38249E-01 800.00 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

0.38201E-01 800.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38437E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38404E-01 800.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38367E-01 800.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38332E-01 800.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38295E-01 800.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38249E-01 800.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38201E-01 800.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38437E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38404E-01 800.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38367E-01 800.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38332E-01 800.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38295E-01 800.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38249E-01 800.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38201E-01 800.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38437E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38404E-01 800.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38367E-01 800.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38332E-01 800.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38295E-01 800.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38249E-01 800.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.38201E-01 800.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36845E-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

0.36822E-01 825.00 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

0.36785E-01 825.00 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

0.36753E-01 825.00 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

0.36718E-01 825.00 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

0.36673E-01 825.00 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

0.36628E-01 825.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36845E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36822E-01 825.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36785E-01 825.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36753E-01 825.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36718E-01 825.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36673E-01 825.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36628E-01 825.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36845E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36822E-01 825.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36785E-01 825.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36753E-01 825.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36718E-01 825.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36673E-01 825.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36628E-01 825.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36845E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36822E-01 825.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36785E-01 825.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36753E-01 825.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36718E-01 825.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36673E-01 825.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.36628E-01 825.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35516E-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

0.35349E-01 850.00 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

0.35314E-01 850.00 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

0.35284E-01 850.00 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

0.35251E-01 850.00 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

0.35206E-01 850.00 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

0.35164E-01 850.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35516E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35349E-01 850.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35314E-01 850.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35284E-01 850.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35251E-01 850.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35206E-01 850.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35164E-01 850.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35516E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35349E-01 850.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35314E-01 850.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35284E-01 850.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35251E-01 850.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35206E-01 850.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35164E-01 850.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35516E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35349E-01 850.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35314E-01 850.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35284E-01 850.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35251E-01 850.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35206E-01 850.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.35164E-01 850.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34128E-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

0.33974E-01 875.00 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

0.33943E-01 875.00 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

0.33914E-01 875.00 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

0.33883E-01 875.00 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

0.33839E-01 875.00 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

0.33799E-01 875.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34128E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33974E-01 875.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33943E-01 875.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33914E-01 875.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33883E-01 875.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33839E-01 875.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33799E-01 875.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34128E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33974E-01 875.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33943E-01 875.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33914E-01 875.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33883E-01 875.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33839E-01 875.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33799E-01 875.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.34128E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33974E-01 875.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33943E-01 875.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33914E-01 875.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33883E-01 875.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33839E-01 875.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.33799E-01 875.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32832E-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

0.32688E-01 900.00 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

0.32662E-01 900.00 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

0.32635E-01 900.00 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

0.32604E-01 900.00 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

0.32562E-01 900.00 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

0.32523E-01 900.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32832E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32688E-01 900.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32662E-01 900.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32635E-01 900.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32604E-01 900.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32562E-01 900.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32523E-01 900.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32832E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32688E-01 900.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32662E-01 900.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32635E-01 900.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32604E-01 900.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32562E-01 900.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32523E-01 900.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32832E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32688E-01 900.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32662E-01 900.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32635E-01 900.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32604E-01 900.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32562E-01 900.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.32523E-01 900.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31618E-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

0.31482E-01 925.00 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

0.31463E-01 925.00 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

0.31437E-01 925.00 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

0.31407E-01 925.00 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

0.31367E-01 925.00 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

0.31329E-01 925.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31618E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31482E-01 925.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31463E-01 925.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31437E-01 925.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31407E-01 925.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31367E-01 925.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31329E-01 925.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31618E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31482E-01 925.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31463E-01 925.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31437E-01 925.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31407E-01 925.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31367E-01 925.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31329E-01 925.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31618E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31482E-01 925.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31463E-01 925.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31437E-01 925.00 0.00 15.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31407E-01 925.00 0.00 20.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31367E-01 925.00 0.00 25.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.31329E-01 925.00 0.00 30.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30481E-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

0.30349E-01 950.00 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

0.30338E-01 950.00 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

0.30313E-01 950.00 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

0.30285E-01 950.00 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

0.30246E-01 950.00 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

0.30210E-01 950.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30481E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30349E-01 950.00 0.00 5.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30338E-01 950.00 0.00 10.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30313E-01 950.00 0.00 15.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30285E-01 950.00 0.00 20.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30246E-01 950.00 0.00 25.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30210E-01 950.00 0.00 30.0 Spring 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 1.00 0.14 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30481E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

6.A.c
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Appellant Statement and Materials (Letters Dated 02-02-22 & 11-03-21) (4956 : Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.10.26_AERSCREEN_20thStreetWellnessCenter_Operation_concentrations.txt[11/2/2021 9:32:52 AM]

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30349E-01 950.00 0.00 5.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30338E-01 950.00 0.00 10.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30313E-01 950.00 0.00 15.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30285E-01 950.00 0.00 20.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30246E-01 950.00 0.00 25.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30210E-01 950.00 0.00 30.0 Summer 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21.

6.0 1.000 2.00 0.16 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30481E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30349E-01 950.00 0.00 5.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0

1.000 2.00 0.18 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0

0.30338E-01 950.00 0.00 10.0 Autumn 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0