HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 - PUBLIC COMMENT_DruryVIA E-MAIL AND US MAIL
October 12, 2020
Chair Mark McLoughlin
and Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
eComments@santa-ana.org
Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP
Project Manager
Planning and Building Agency
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
APezeshkpour@santa-ana.org
Minh Thai, Executive Director
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency | M20
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
mthai@santa-ana.org
Re: Comment on EIR Addendum for 4th & Mortimer Project (SCH NO.
2006071100)
Chair McLoughlin and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of the Supporters’ Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”), a California non-profit organization with members living in and around the City
of Santa Ana, regarding the 4th & Mortimer Project, proposed to be located on two city
blocks at 409 East 4th Street (Block A), and 509 East 4th Street (Block B). (“Project”). Staff
contends that the potential environmental effects of the Project have been fully addressed
by the Transit Zoning Code Environmental Impact Report certified a decade ago in 2010
(“2010 EIR”). Fundamentally, the proposed Project is an entirely different project than
was analyzed in 2010 EIR (“2010 Project”). The proposed Project is inconsistent with the
zoning, massing and land use analyzed in the 2010 EIR, and therefore requires zone
changes. The proposed Project includes greater massing and higher population density
than analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Also the Proposed Project fails to incorporate numerous
mitigation measures required by the 2010 EIR. The Proposed Project will have several
new and different environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Finally,
the 2010 EIR recognized that the 2010 Project would have many significant and
unmitigated environmental impacts. As such a new draft EIR is required to analyze and
mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project.
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 2 of 15
A number of highly qualified experts have reviewed the proposed Project and its
environmental effects. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH,
and Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Matthew Hagemann, C. Hg. of environmental
consulting firm Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) have identified a number
of significant impacts from the proposed Project including air quality impacts, as well as
omissions and flaws in the documents relied upon by staff. These comments are attached
as Exhibits A and B.
By opting to proceed with an Addendum instead of the required EIR or
supplemental EIR (“SEIR”), the City of Santa Ana (“City”) has deprived the members of
the public of the public review and circulation requirement available for EIRs. SAFER
urges the Commission not to adopt the Addendum or approve the Project, and instead to
direct staff to prepare a Draft EIR for the Project, and to circulate the Draft EIR for public
review and comment prior to Project approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves a residential and commercial development that would consist
of 169 residential units and 11,361 square feet of commercial retail space on two city
blocks, 409 East 4th Street (Block A) and 509 East 4th Street (Block B).
The City attempts to rely on a decade-old EIR certified in 2010 for the Transit
Zoning Code (“TZC”). The TZC area covers over 100 blocks and 450 acres in the central
core of Santa Ana. Under the TZC, Block A is currently zoned as “District Center-
Downtown subzone,” and Block B is zoned as “Urban Neighborhood 2 subzone” (UN-2).
Block B is inconsistent with the zoning, massing and density studied in the 2010
EIR. The UN-2 zoning allows single-family duplexes, triplexes and quadraplexes,
courtyard housing and rowhouses. UN-2 does not allow “lined block buildings” such as
proposed by the Project. (Addendum 2-11). The Project exceeds the massing allowed in
the UN-2 zone and therefore requires a variance from section 41-2023 of the zoning
code. In particular, UN-2 requires that floors 3-5 of a building may cover no more than
85% of the ground floor, but the project proposes 100% coverage. (Addendum 2-11).
The Project exceeds the density allowed in UN-2. UN-2 allows density of up to 50
dwelling units per acres, but the Project proposes 54 DU/acres. (Addendum 3.6-5). For
these reasons, the Project proposes to rezone the property from UN-2 to Urban Center
(UC).
LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare
an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the fair argument standard. Under that standard,
a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record
before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on
the environment. Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California (1993) (“Laurel Heights II”) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123;
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 3 of 15
No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens
v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.
A. Addendum Standard.
The City relies on CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15164 to claim that no CEQA
review is required. The court of appeal recently stated, “The addendum is the other side
of the coin from the supplement to an EIR. This section provides an interpretation with a
label and an explanation of the kind of document that does not need additional public
review.” “It must be remembered that an addendum is prepared where ‘(2) Only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration
adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do
not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.’
([Guideline] 15164, subd. (a).)” Save Our Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego, 28 Cal.
App. 5th 656, 664–65 (2018) (emphasis added).
Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a
responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to Section
15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is
only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would,
in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 4 of 15
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
B. Tiering Under CEQA
CEQA permits agencies to ‘tier’ EIRs, in which general matters and environmental
effects are considered in an EIR “prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance
followed by narrower or site-specific [EIRs] which incorporate by reference the discussion
in any prior [EIR] and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are
capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the
environment in the prior [EIR].” (Cal. Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068.5.) “[T]iering is
appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at
each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of
environmental effects examined in previous [EIRs].” (PRC § 21093.) The initial general
policy-oriented EIR is called a programmatic EIR (“PEIR”) and offers the advantage of
allowing “the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with
basic problems or cumulative impacts.” (14 CCR §15168.) CEQA regulations strongly
promote tiering of EIRs, stating that “[EIRs] shall be tiered whenever feasible, as
determined by the lead agency.” (PRC § 21093.)
“Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program
EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” (14
CCR § 15168(c).) The first consideration is whether the activity proposed is covered by
the PEIR. Id. If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a
separate project and the PEIR may not be relied upon in further review. (Sierra Club v.
County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307.) The second consideration is whether the
“later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR.” (14 CCR §§
15168(c)(1).) A PEIR may only serve “to the extent that it contemplates and adequately
analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project.” (Sierra Nevada
Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156). If the PEIR does not
evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, a tiered EIR must be completed before
the project is approved. (Id.)
For these inquiries, the “fair argument test” applies. (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.App.4th
1307, 1318; see also Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152,
1164 (“when a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program or plan, the
question for a court reviewing an agency's decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later
project ‘is one of law, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument.’”).)
Under the fair argument test, a new EIR must be prepared “whenever it can be fairly
argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant
environmental impact. (Id. at 1316 [quotations omitted].) When applying the fair argument
test, “deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to
require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.”
(Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1312.) “[I]f there is substantial evidence in the record that
the later project may arguably have a significant adverse effect on the environment which
was not examined in the prior program EIR, doubts must be resolved in favor of
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 5 of 15
environmental review and the agency must prepare a new tiered EIR, notwithstanding the
existence of contrary evidence.” (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1319.)
DISCUSSION
A. CEQA REQUIRES THE CITY TO PREPARE A TIERED EIR FOR THE PROJECT
INSTEAD OF AN ADDENDUM
The City has incorrectly applied the CEQA criteria for preparing an addendum
when, instead, the City should have applied CEQA’s tiering provisions. The City relies on
CEQA Guidelines section 15164, which applies to preparing an addendum to an existing
EIR for a project. However, the 2010 EIR was not a project-specific EIR, which the CEQA
Guidelines define as an “EIR[which] examines the environmental impacts of a specific
development project.” (14 CCR § 15161.) Rather, the 2010 EIR was a comprehensive
policy and regulatory guidance document for the private use and development of all
properties within the TZC area. Tiering is governed by CEQA Guidelines section 15152,
not sections 15162 and 15164.
The 2010 EIR made clear that the City was relying on CEQA’s tiering provisions. It
states, “This EIR will be used to tier subsequent environmental analysis for future
development included within the Transit Zoning Code boundaries, as allowed by
Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines.” (2010 DEIR 2-4). There is no question that
the 2010 TZC EIR was intended as a first tier CEQA document, and that second tier
CEQA documents would be required for specific project proposals. The 2010 EIR states
that it will “provide a basis for the preparation of subsequent environmental
documentation for future development within the Transit Zoning Code area.” (2010 DEIR
2-1). Thus the 2010 EIR clearly contemplated that specific projects would be subject to
“subsequent environmental documentation.” The 2010 EIR states, “the Transit Zoning
Code does not constitute a commitment to any specific project … Thus, the EIR will
analyze these future actions at a programmatic level. Each future development
proposal undertaken within the Transit Zoning Code must be approved individually
by the City, as appropriate, in compliance with CEQA.” (2020 DEIR 2-2). Despite
these clear assurances that the 2010 EIR was a programmatic EIR and that project-
specific environmental review would be required for individual projects, the City is now
attempting to avoid the very project-specific review that is promised the public in 2010.
The 2010 EIR is a Program EIR, which the CEQA Guidelines define as:
An EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as
one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria
to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can
be mitigated in similar ways.
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 6 of 15
(14 CCR § 15168.) Thus, instead of proceeding under the provisions of CEQA Guidelines
section 15164, the City should have proceeded under section 15152 provisions for
subsequent analysis for a Program EIR rather than an addendum to an existing project-
specific EIR.
B. THE 2010 EIR HAS NO INFORMATIONAL VALUE TO THE PROJECT.
As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent
CEQA review provisions “can apply only if the project has been subject to initial
review; they can have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that
has not previously been subject to review.” Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens
v. San Mateo, 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 (2016) (“San Mateo Gardens”); see also, Martis Camp
Cmty. Ass'n v. Cty. of Placer, 53 Cal. App. 5th 569 (2020). As the Supreme Court
explains, “[a] decision to proceed under CEQA‘s subsequent review provisions must thus
necessarily rest on a determination — whether implicit or explicit — that the original
environmental document retains some informational value.” Id. at 951 (emph. added).
Only if the original environmental document retains some informational value despite the
proposed changes, changes in circumstances or new substantial information does the
agency proceed to decide under CEQA's subsequent review provisions whether such
changes or substantial new information will require major revisions to the original
environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered
significant environmental effects. 1 Cal.5th at 952. Reviewing the 2010 EIR, the City
cannot reasonably claim that it addresses the Project that exceeds the density and
massing analyzed in the 2010 EIR.
Since the Project exceeds the density and massing analyzed in the 2010, and
requires a variance, it has never undergone CEQA review, it is a new project, and the City
must start from the beginning of the CEQA process under section 21151, conduct an
initial study, and determine whether there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that
the project will have a significant environmental impact. Friends of College of San Mateo
Gardens v. San Mateo, 1 Cal.5th at 951. The City Council should require CEQA review
for the Project, and not approve the Project until CEQA review is completed.
C. A TIERED EIR IS REQUIRED TO ANALYZE AND MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2010 EIR.
The 2010 EIR admitted that the program would have significant unavoidable
impacts in the areas of:
Aesthetics: shadows. (2010 DEIR 1-11)
Air Quality:
inconsistency with 2007 Air Quality Management Plan;
construction emissions exceed significance thresholds;
mobile source emissions of VOC, NOx, CO and PM-10 exceed significance
thresholds;
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 7 of 15
construction and operation emissions are cumulatively considerable in
excess of significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO and PM-10. (2010
DEIR 1-11).
Cultural Resources: The TZC area includes historic buildings and an historic
district. “The feasibility of retaining a historic structure/resource is determined on a
case-by-case basis.” (2010 DEIR 1-12).
Noise: significant noise and vibration from pile-driving and nearby rail operations.
(2010 DEIR 1-12).
Traffic: Significant traffic impacts, includoing at the 1-5 northbound off-ramp at
Santa Ana Blvd. to an unacceptable level of service. (2010 DEIR 1-12).
Since the overall program will have significant unavoidable impacts, the City must
conduct project-level supplemental EIRs for specific projects proposed within the program
area. The supplemental EIRs are required to determine whether mitigation measures
exist to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the 2010 EIR.
In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125, the court of appeal held that when a “first tier” EIR
admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare
second tier EIRs for later phases of the project to ensure that those unmitigated impacts
are “mitigated or avoided.” (Id. citing CEQA Guidelines §15152(f)) The court reasoned
that the unmitigated impacts were not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR since
they were not “mitigated or avoided.” (Id.) Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier
EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been “adequately addressed,”
in a way that ensures the effects will be “mitigated or avoided.” (Id.) Such a second tier
EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of
overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a
statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability
statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to
justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and
to point to substantial evidence in support.” (Id. at 124-125) The court specifically
rejected a prior version of the CEQA guidelines regarding tiering that would have allowed
a statement of overriding considerations for a program-level project to be used for a later
specific project within that program. (Communities for a Better Env’t v. California Res.
Agency (2001) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 124, disapproved on other grounds by Berkeley
Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.) Even though “a prior EIR’s
analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a
later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must still go on the record and
explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant
unavoidable impacts.” (Id., pp. 124-25.)
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 8 of 15
D. THE ADDENDUM’S CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A
FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
Even if the addendum provisions applied to the Project (which they do not), a
supplemental EIR would be required to analyze new significant impacts of the Project
resulting from changes to the 2010 Project and new impacts that were not analyzed in the
2010 EIR.
1. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Result in
Significant 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 (Exhibit A). Mr. Offerman
concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents of the Project’s
residential units to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular,
emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the
world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic.
See attached CV.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in
modern home construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas
formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of
formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde
resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials
are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window
shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Offermann Comment, pp. 2-3.
Mr. Offermann states:
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.
Offermann Comment, p. 1.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a
fair argument that residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from
formaldehyde of between 112 and 180 per million. (Offermann Comment, pp. 2-3.) This
is far above the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 9 of 15
significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Even if the Project uses
modern “CARB-compliant” materials, Mr. Offermann concludes that formaldehyde will
create a cancer risk more than ten times above the CEQA significance threshold.
Offermann Comment, p. 3. Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental
impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to
reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure.
Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be
analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of
formaldehyde exposure. Id., pp. 4. 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. Offermann Comments, pp. 11-12
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 residents and workers,
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
SCAQMD level. Offermann Comments, pp. 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.
Residents will be users of the residential units, and employees will be users of the hotel
and offices. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site.
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 10 of 15
Once the Project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks.
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 and residents” 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 thousands of future residents and
employees at the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those workers is
as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project
site.
The Addendum fails to disclose, analyze, or mitigate these new significant impacts.
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a
significant environmental impact to future users of the project, an EIR must be prepared
to disclose and mitigate those impacts.
2. The Project Will Have Significant Impacts Due to Inconsistencies
with the Planning and Zoning Code.
The proposed Project exceeds massing and density allowed by the zoning code.
Urban Neighborhood zone (UN-2) allows single-family, duplexes, triplexes, and
quadplexes, courtyard housing and rowhouses. The Project is much more intense than
quadplexes. UN-2 does not permit Lined Block buildings, such as the Project. (Addendum
2-11). The Project requires a variance for massing since Zoning Code section 41-2023
requires floors 3-5 may occupy no more than 85% of ground floor, but the Project
proposes 100% coverage. (Addedum 2-11). The UN-2 zone allows density up to 50
dwelling units per acre, but this Project has 54 DU/acre. (Addendum 3.6-5).
These inconsistencies with the zoning code and zoning designations are significant
impacts under CEQA that must be analyzed and mitigated in a supplemental EIR. Of
course, these impacts were not analyzed in the 2010 EIR since that document assumed
that future projects would comply with the designated zoning and land use laws.
Where a local or regional policy of general applicability, such as an ordinance, is
adopted in order to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, a conflict with that policy in
itself indicates a potentially significant impact on the environment. (Pocket Protectors v.
Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903.) Indeed, any inconsistencies between a
proposed project and applicable plans must be discussed in an EIR. (14 CCR §
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 11 of 15
15125(d); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th
889, 918; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App.
4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead Agency failed to identify relationship of project
to relevant local plans).) A Project’s inconsistencies with local plans and policies
constitute significant impacts under CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County
of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 783-4, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177; see also, County of El
Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (fact that a project may be
consistent with a plan, such as an air plan, does not necessarily mean that it does not
have significant impacts).) Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food
and Agriculture (2005) 136 Ca1.App.4th 1, 17 (“[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to
support a finding of no significant impact under the CEQA.”). The recent Georgetown
Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358 echoes Pocket
Protectors. These both apply the fair argument standard to a potential inconsistency with
a plan adopted for environmental protection. Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v.
Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 holds that an EIR needs to analyze
any topic for which a fair argument of significant impact is raised.
Since the proposed Project is inconsistent with the zoning code, and requires a
zone change and variance, it will have significant impacts that must be analyzed in a
tiered EIR. These impacts were not analyzed in the 2010 EIR.
3. The Project Will Have Significant Impacts to Historic Resources.
The proposed Project may have significant impacts to historic resources, and the
City has failed to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 2010 EIR with
respect to this impact. The downtown zone is a National Historic District (2010 DEIR 1-5).
The 2010 DEIR required development to be “context-sensitive infill development.” (Id.)
The Addendum admits that the Project site includes a historically significant building on
the Built Environment Resources Directory (“BERD”) database. (Addendum 3.3-3). The
historic building is the Santa Ana Car Salon, located at 509-515 East 4th Street.
(Addendum Appendix C, Cultural Resources, p.3, 8). The historic resource is a “rare
example of the Western False Front Style in Santa Ana.” (Id.) This historic building will
be demolished as part of the Project, and the Project will therefore have adverse impacts
on an historic resource.
The 2010 EIR required a case-by-case historic analysis for future projects, and
required that for each project an historic resource expert must be retained to conduct an
analysis and to suggest measures to minimize impacts. (2010 DEIR 1-24). However, no
such historic resource analysis was done for the Project due to “constraints surrounding
COVID-19.” (Addendum 3.1-1).
Since the City has failed to implement mitigation measures required by the 2010
EIR, a subsequent EIR is required. If the agency fails to implement mitigation measures
required by a prior EIR, this requires CEQA review, even for an otherwise ministerial
project. Katzeff v. Dept. of Forestry (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601, 611, 614; Lincoln Place
Tenants v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1507-1508. The purpose of
this requirement “is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 12 of 15
implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected
or disregarded.” Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles
(2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1260-1261. The decision to abandon an adopted mitigation
measure is a discretionary decision.
An agency fails proceed in a manner required by law when it fails to comply with
adopted CEQA mitigation measures. Lincoln Place, 130 Cal.App.4th at 1508, 1510
(“[h]aving placed these conditions . . . the city cannot simply ignore them. Mitigating
conditions are not mere expressions of hope . . . [i]n the present case the city failed to
proceed according to law . . .”). “[T]his rule is applicable even if one of the smaller parts
might require only ministerial, rather than discretionary, approval.” Katzeff, 181
Cal.App.4th at 611; Lincoln Place, 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1507 n22 (“it cannot be argued
CEQA does not apply to the . . . demolition on the ground the demolition permits are
ministerial acts.”)
Since the Project may have significant impacts to historic resources, and the City
has failed to comply with mitigation measures required by the 2010 EIR, a supplemental
EIR is required to analyze this impact.
4. The Project Fails to Implement Mitigation Measures Required by the
2010 EIR.
The Project fails to implement several mitigation measures required by the 2010
EIR. As discussed above, the failure to implement mitigation measures set forth in a prior
EIR itself requires preparation of a supplemental EIR.
In addition to the historic resources mitigation measure, the Addendum fails to
implement energy conservation and greenhouse gas mitigation measure 4.2-22, which
requires projects to exceed Title 24 energy standards by 20%. (2010 DEIR 1-18).
However, the Addendum fails to implement this measure, since the Project will merely
comply with Title 24, not exceed Title 24 by 20%.
The 2010 EIR included numerous air quality mitigation measures that are not
required in the Addendum for the Project. (2010 EIR 1-18, MM 4.2-21, 4.2-22). The
failure to implement these mitigation measures requires preparation of a supplemental
EIR.
5. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
We submit herewith the comments of Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Matthew
Hagemann, C. Hg, P.G. of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE. They conclude
that the Addendum’s air quality analysis is riddled with errors due to unsubstantiated input
parameters used to estimate Project emissions. (SWAPE 1). Correcting for these errors,
SWAPE concludes that the Project will create a cancer risk from airborne pollution of up
to 210 per million. (SWAPE 18). This is over twenty times above the South Coast Air
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 13 of 15
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million.
SWAPE also calculates that the Project will have significant greenhouse gas impacts.
(SWAPE 23). SWAPE concludes that the Addendum fails to impose all feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts.
Exceedance of Air District thresholds establishes a significant impact under CEQA.
Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and
treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. See,
e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies
BAAQMD’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative
significance”). See also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources
Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 (“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given
environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the
project to be significant”). The California Supreme Court recently made clear the
substantial importance that a BAAQMD significance threshold plays in providing
substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better
Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327
(“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance
threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456
pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a
significant adverse impact”).
An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts.
E. EVEN IF THE 2010 EIR WERE STILL RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT, A
SUPPLEMENTAL OR SUBSEQUENT EIR IS NECESSARY BECAUSE
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WILL RESULT IN NEW AND MORE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
Even assuming that the 2010 EIR had some relevance to evaluating the
environmental impacts of this Project, numerous substantial changes in the development
plans have occurred such as the increase in massing and density, new information of
substantial importance has arisen, and substantial changes in circumstances have taken
place that require a wholesale revision of the dated 2010 EIR.
When changes to a project’s circumstances or new substantial information comes
to light subsequent to the certification of an EIR for a project, the agency must prepare a
subsequent or supplemental EIR if the changes are “[s]ubstantial” and require “major
revisions” of the previous EIR. Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty.
Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 943. “[W]hen there is a change in plans,
circumstances, or available information after a project has received initial approval, the
agency’s environmental review obligations “turn[ ] on the value of the new information to
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 14 of 15
the still pending decisionmaking process.” Id., 1 Cal.5th at 951–52. The agency must
“decide under CEQA's subsequent review provisions whether project changes will require
major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of
new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects.” Id., 1 Cal.5th at 952.
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 “do[] not permit agencies to avoid their
obligation to prepare subsequent or supplemental EIRs to address new, and previously
unstudied, potentially significant environmental effects.” Id., 1 Cal.5th at 958.
The evidence indicates that the project considered by the 2010 EIR has undergone
significant changes to the project and its circumstances requiring substantial revisions to
that 10-year old EIR.
A. A New EIR is Required Because the Increase in Massing and Density is a
Substantial Change from the 2010 Project and there is Substantial
Evidence that the Project Will Result in Emissions of Formaldehyde to the
Air that Will Have a Significant Health Impact on Future Residents.
Even if the 201 EIR were somehow relevant to the current Project, the City would
still be required to prepare an SEIR. The increase in massing and density, the failure to
conduct a historic resource analysis, and zoning changes and variances required as part
of the Project is a substantial change from the 2010 project. “The purpose behind the
requirement of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration is to explore
environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document.” Friends
of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949 (quoting Save
Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1296). For example, in the
case of Ventura Foothill Neighbors, a mere increase in the height of a building by 15 feet
required a supplemental EIR, not an addendum. Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. Cty. of
Ventura, 232 Cal. App. 4th 429 (2014).
As discussed above, the expert opinion of Mr. Offermann constitutes substantial
evidence that the residential component of the Project will result in a significant air quality
impact to residential occupants of the Project. This impact is significant and new. It could
not have been known in 2010 because the science in this area did not exist until 2015.
Accordingly, the City violated CEQA by not preparing an SEIR to analyze and mitigate
this new significant impact.
There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the
Project will not have a new significant indoor air quality impact as a result of significant
changes to the Project when compared to the project analyzed in the 2010 EIR.
Accordingly, the City’s decision to prepare an Addendum rather than an SEIR is not
supported by substantial evidence, and approval of the Project based on the Addendum
would constitute an abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
For the above and other reasons, the Planning Commission should decline to
recommend the City Council approve the Addendum, and instead direct Planning Staff to
4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum
October 12, 2020
Page 15 of 15
prepare and circulate an EIR for public review. The City may not rely on the 10-year old
2010 EIR.
Sincerely,
Richard Toshiyuki Drury
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
ATTACHMENT A
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: October 12, 2020
To: Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 4th and Mortimer Project, Santa Ana, CA
(IEE File Reference: P-4394)
Pages: 19
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 high-performance
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
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
2 of 19
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
3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring,
cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics
control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood
products, including hardwood plywood, 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
(Chan 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.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38% lower
median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk
is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.
This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer
risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to 4th and Mortimer Project in Santa Ana, CA the buildings consist of multi-
family residential buildings and commercial buildings.
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.
4 of 19
Because these 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 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the commercial spaces employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3
of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 149 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 65.8 µg/day.
This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 16.4 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.
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g., 24 hours per day,
52 weeks per year) to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing
commonly found in residential construction. These exposures to formaldehyde are
anticipated to result in significant cancer risks.
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM
materials and ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor
residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed
in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median
of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year
5 of 19
lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 448 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 112 per million, which is more than 11 times
SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million
(SCAQMD, 2015). For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk
will be proportionally less but still substantially over this CEQA cancer risk of 10 per
million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 5 times the OEHHA cancer risk of 10
per million).
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM,
provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials
will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting
formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of
formaldehyde below the CEQA cancer risks. 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 CEQA 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.
6 of 19
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.
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 urea-formaldehyde resins
(e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the
formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde
emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (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.
7 of 19
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.
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 area-specific
8 of 19
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.
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).
9 of 19
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
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
10 of 19
Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental
Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre-
Construction Building Material/Furnishing 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
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 4th and Mortimer Project located in Santa Ana, CA is close to roads with moderate to
high traffic (e.g., E. 4th Street, E. 5th Street, French Street, Mortimer Street, and N. Minter
Street, etc.) as well as close to the AT&SF rail line. As a result of the outdoor vehicle traffic
noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site.
According to the 4th and Mortimer Project – Environmental Impact Report Addendum, SCH
#2006071100, (City of Santa Ana, 2020) the ambient noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL.
11 of 19
As a result of the 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 4th and Mortimer Project – Environmental Impact Report Addendum, SCH
#2006071100, (City of Santa Ana, 2020), the Project is located in 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:
12 of 19
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
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
13 of 19
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
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.
14 of 19
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.
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.
Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in
New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI:
10.20357/B7QC7X.
City of Santa Ana. 2020. 4th and Mortimer Project – Environmental Impact Report
Addendum, SCH #2006071100.
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.
15 of 19
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
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.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-
analysis-handbook
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM
regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure
healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM
regulation - The purpose of this 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 Department of Public Health,
17 of 19
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,
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA
18 of 19
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.
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980)
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 -
present.
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in
conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation
development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance
measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and
ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new
State of Washington Ecology Department building.
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air
diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion
Performance Index.
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical
emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured
ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern
and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners,
managers, hygienists, and engineers.
2
Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March,
1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced
choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated
calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage
treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication
rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to
August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and
field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies
(i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including
evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant
transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems
and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their
effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates
and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system
used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January,
1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor
correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters
on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating
Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to
October, 1979.
3
Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell
and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing
equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new
equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system
and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material
handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing
the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992)
• Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation
Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010)
- Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee
- Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper
Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92)
- 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)
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.
5
Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July
2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey,
CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum,
Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air
2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the
development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air
cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an
alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air
exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during
nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65
product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department
of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls
who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality
and environmental tobacco smoke.
6
Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the
proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of
Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the
Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct
a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick
Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality
Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California
Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-
cigarettes.
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in
Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality,"
Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air
Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537,
1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation
Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers,"
ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of
Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-
1B, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen,
"Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing
and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and
K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
7
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater,
"Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny
Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air
Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air
Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three
Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592
1989.
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume
Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and
Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon
Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air,
1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler
for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot
Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different
Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy
Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor
Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air,
Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a
Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an
Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing
Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
8
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates
Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for
Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas
Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local
Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and
Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas
in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181,
ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation
Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing
Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation
and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers,
Netherlands, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions
from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building
Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96,
Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air,
Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from
PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland,
August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on
Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints
9
in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”,
submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical
Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good
For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New
California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”,
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips,
“Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB
2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from
Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU,
July, 2012.
W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai,
“Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease
Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”,
Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive
Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”,
Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
10
OTHER REPORTS:
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential
Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the
Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A
Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report
LBL-12777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and
G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted
Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air
Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An
interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen,
"Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor
Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American
Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and
J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro,
"Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from
Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
11
R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and
Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol
Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial
Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525,
Elsevier, 1984.
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of
Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August
20-24, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi-
Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office
Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office
Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental
Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides",
an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold
Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System
in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board,
March, 1990.
12
L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for
Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling
and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90,
July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”,
Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 -
Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE
Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation
Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”,
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH,
1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to
Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air
Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design &
Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in
Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and
Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution,
Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.
13
"Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,"
Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA,
May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and
Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26,
1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno,
NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and
the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality
Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System,"
Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the
Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21,
1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to
Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency
and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management
Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air
'89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
14
"Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable
Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20,
1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a
workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21,
1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando,
FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C.,
February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24,
1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991;
Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991;
Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ,
November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23,
1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems
Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property
Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium &
International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association
of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA,
September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001,
Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the
Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY,
January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991;
Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV,
December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6,
1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,
15
NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV,
March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995;
Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose
Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the
Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23,
1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November
14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual
Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness",
Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992.
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in
Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January
26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor
air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers;
Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles,
March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas,
August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993;
Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997.
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA
one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility
managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San
Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
16
“Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San
Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management
workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco,
October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose,
March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton,
November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa
Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San
Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”,
AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air
Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety
Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September
27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24,
1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA;
October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant
Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9,
1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change
Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and
Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996.
“IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual
Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
“The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene
Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
17
“ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric
Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30,
1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State
Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21,
1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE,
Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March
19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10,
1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San
Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE
Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
“Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”,
PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction
Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
“Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference,
San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda
County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28,
1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland
Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998.
“Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.
18
“Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety
Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of
California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental
Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction
Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect
Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency,
Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3,
2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint
Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County
& Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
“Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 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.
19
“Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH
Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9,
2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA,
January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004;
Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA,
November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November
18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited
Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
“Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker,
Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American
Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
“Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities
Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008
Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of
Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference,
October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home
Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
“Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
20
“Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition,
Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”,
Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”,
ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21,
2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings,
Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California
Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career
Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San
Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus
Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor
Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation
System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington,
DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park
Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”,
Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis
Hotel, May 27, 2015.
21
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA
Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2,
2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution,
Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center
Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
“A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts
of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood
Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65
Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
“Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December
1, 2016.
ATTACHMENT B
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887‐9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795‐2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
October 12, 2020
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on 4
th and Mortimer Project (SCH No. 2006071100)
Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the October 2020 Environmental Impact Report Addendum (“Addendum”) for the 4th
and Mortimer Project (“Project”) located in the City of Santa Ana (“City”). The Project proposes to
demolish two existing buildings as well as construct a 93,117‐SF mixed‐use residential structure
containing 99 apartment units, a 74,986‐SF multi‐family residential structure containing 70 units, 8,075‐
SF of leasing/amenity areas, 3,847‐SF of restaurant space, 7,514‐SF of retail space, and 422 parking
spaces on the 2.7‐acre site.
Our review concludes that the Addendum fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health
risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An
EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and
greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
The Addendum’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2.1 CalEEMod
provides recommended default values based on site‐specific information, such as land use type,
meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type.
If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project‐
1 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐
source/caleemod/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
2
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be
justified by substantial evidence.2 Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's
construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output
files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant
emissions and make known which default values were changed as well as provide justification for the
values selected.3
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Assessment as
Appendix B to the Addendum, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information
disclosed in the Addendum. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are
underestimated. A Project‐specific 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.
Use of an Underestimated CO2 Intensity Factor
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the default CO2 intensity factor was
manually reduced from 702.44 pounds per megawatt hour (“lbs/MWh”) to 510.44 lbs/MWh (see
excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 80, 112, 232).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the default CO2 intensity factor was artificially reduced by
approximately 27%. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to
model defaults be justified.4 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non‐Default Data” table, the
justification provided for these changes is:
“CO2 Intensity Factor adjusted per the SCE 2018 CRSR. The report provides intensity factor of
CO2e, The CO2 intensity factor is calculated as 513‐25*0.029‐298*0.00617=510.4363 to avoid
double counting” (Appendix B, pp. 79, 111, 231).
However, review of the Edison International 2018 Sustainability Report demonstrates that the CO2
intensity factor is 513 lbs/MWh.5 As the Project fails to provide an adequate source for the values and
calculations utilized in the “User Entered Comments & Non‐Default Data” table justification, we cannot
verify the revised value of 510.44 lbs/MWh. As such, the Project should have used the 513 lbs/MWh
carbon intensity value. This underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the CO2 intensity
2 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.
3 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 11, 12 – 13. A key feature of the CalEEMod
program is the “remarks” feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a “user defined”
value. These remarks are included in the report.
4 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
5 Edison International 2018 Sustainability Report, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐
source/caleemod/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4%20, p. 10
3
factor to calculate the Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions associated with electricity use.6 Thus,
by including an underestimated CO2 intensity factor, the model underestimates the Project’s GHG
emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Use of an Underestimated Land Use Size
According to the Addendum, the proposed Project on Block A would include:
“a mixed‐use residential structure containing 99 apartment units, with approximately 93,117
square feet of residential space, 8,075 square feet of leasing/amenity areas, a 3,847‐square foot
restaurant, and 7,514 square feet of retail space. On Block B, a 70‐unit multi‐family residential
structure would be constructed, with 74,986 square feet of residential space, as well as an
aboveground parking structure with approximately 192 stalls” (emphasis added) (p. 2‐10).
Thus, the Project would include 8,075‐SF of leasing/amenity areas, in addition to the proposed 93,117‐
SF of residential land use space on Block A and 74,986‐SF of residential land use space on Block B. As
such, the Project’s CalEEMod should have a total of 176,178‐SF of residential land use space.7 However,
review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrate that the model includes only 169,000‐SF of
“Apartments Mid Rise” (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 78, 110, 230).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the “Apartment Mid Rise” land use was underestimated by 7,178‐
SF. This underestimation presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to
determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square
footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted
(i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy
impacts). Furthermore, CalEEMod assigns each land use type with its own set of energy usage emission
factors.8 By underestimating the proposed residential land use size, the model underestimates the
Project’s construction‐related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine
Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model includes unsubstantiated
changes to the Project’s anticipated individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (Appendix
B, pp. 80, 112, 232).
6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 17.
7 (93,117‐SF of residential space on Block A) + (8,075‐SF of leasing/amenity areas on Block A) + (74,986‐SF of
residential space on Block B) = 176,178‐SF total.
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix‐d2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2
4
As a result of these changes, the model includes a construction schedule as follows (Appendix B, pp. 84,
116, 237):
As demonstrated in the excerpts above, the demolition construction phase is increased by 15%, from
the default value of 20 to 23 days; the site preparation remains at the default value of 3 days; the
grading construction phase is increased by approximately 633%, from the default value of 6 to 44 days;
the building construction phase is increased by approximately 40%, from the default value of 220 to 307
days; the paving construction phase is increased by 140%, from the default value of 10 to 24 days; and
the architectural coating phase is increased by 430%, from the default value of 10 to 53 days. As
previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non‐Default Data” table, the justification provided for
these changes is: “Estimated construction schedule based on construction questionnaire” (Appendix B,
pp. 79, 111, 231). However, the Addendum and associated documents fail to disclose a construction
questionnaire.
Furthermore, the Addendum states that “[c]onstruction is anticipated to take 21 to 24 months is
expected to begin in September 2021” (p. 2‐11). However, while the total construction schedule is
approximately 21 months, from 9/1/2021 to 5/29/2023, the Addendum and associated documents fail
to provide the specific individual construction phase lengths. As a result, we cannot verify the reivsed
construction schedules and individual construction phase lengths included in the model.
These unsubstantiated changes improperly spread out construction emissions over a longer period of
time for some construction phases and not others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each
construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).10
9 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐
source/caleemod/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 31.
5
As such, by disproportionately altering individual construction phase lengths without proper
justification, the model’s calculations are altered and underestimate emissions. Thus, by including
unsubstantiated changes to the Project’s anticipated individual construction phase lengths, the model
may underestimate the Project’s maximum daily construction‐related emissions and should not be
relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.
Unsubstantiated Amount of Demolition
According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “[h]aul trips are based on the amount of material that is
demolished, imported or exported assuming a truck can handle 16 cubic yards of material.”11 Therefore,
the air model calculates a default number of hauling trips based upon the amount of demolition
material inputted into the model.
Regarding the amount of demolition required for Project construction, the Addendum states:
“The proposed project involves demolition of two existing buildings, Northgate Gonzalez Market
and Muñoz Auto & Tire Repair” (p. 2‐10).
Furthermore, review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model calculated a
default value of 267 hauling truck trips (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 86, 118, 239).
11 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/caleemod/02_appendix‐a2016‐3‐2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14
6
As you can see in the excerpt above, the model calculates 267 hauling truck trips for demolition.
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non‐Default Data” table, the justification provided for
these changes is: “Estimated tons of demolished material based on AQ construction questionnaire”
(Appendix B, pp. 79, 111, 231). However, this justification is incorrect for two (2) reasons. First, the
Addendum and associated documents fail to provide an AQ construction questionnaire, as referenced.
As such, we are unable to verify the inputted amount of demolition material as claimed. Second, the
Addendum fails to disclose the specific square footage of facilities to be demolished or the tons of debris
resulting from this demolition. Thus, we cannot verify that the hauling trip number calculated in the
model is the result of the input of the correct amount of demolition. As such, demolition may be
underestimated.
This potential 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 emissions during the demolition phase are mechanical or explosive
dismemberment, site removal of debris, and on‐site truck traffic on paved and unpaved road.12 Thus, by
failing to substantiate the demolition of existing structures and hardscape, emissions associated with
fugitive dust, site removal, and exhaust from hauling trucks traveling to and from the site may be
underestimated. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction‐related emissions
and should not be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.
Use of Underestimated Operational Vehicle Trips
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”), provided by Appendix K to the Addendum, the proposed
Project is expected to generate 1,171 daily vehicle trips throughout operation (Appendix K, pp. 314,
Table 5‐1). However, review of the “Project Traffic Generation Forecast Table” demonstrates that a 5%
non‐auto trip reduction was applied to the Project’s daily vehicle trip estimate, resulting in a reduction
of 59 vehicle trips (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 314, Table 5‐1).
12 CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix A, p. 11, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/
7
As the above excerpt demonstrates, the TIA includes a 5% reduction to the trip generation calculations
to account for non‐vehicle transport. Regarding the 5% non‐auto trip reduction, the TIA states:
“Please note that a 5% non‐auto trip reduction was applied to the trip generation to account for
other modes of transportation within a downtown area (i.e. public transit, walking, biking, etc.).
It is our understanding that the City of Santa Ana and Garden Grove have partnered with OCTA
to develop the “OC Streetcar” which will further enhance mobility throughout Downtown Santa
Ana, beyond the current transit opportunities that are now availability. In addition, the Santa
Ana Renaissance Specific Plan Traffic Study prepared by KOA dated January 2010 utilized a
similar 5% mode adjust” (Appendix K, pp. 312‐313).
However, this justification is insufficient for three (3) reasons. First, while the TIA cites to the Santa Ana
Renaissance Specific Plan Traffic Study, which supposedly includes a similar adjustment, the TIA fails to
provide a source for the 5% non‐auto trip reduction applied to the proposed Project. Second, simply
because a Traffic Study in 2010 includes a similar 5% mode adjustment does not substantiate the
inclusion of the reduction for the current Project. Third, the TIA fails to provide sufficient evidence that
the development of the “OC Streetcar” would specifically result in a 5% reduction in vehicle trips for the
proposed Project. As such, we cannot verify the 5% non‐auto trip reduction, and the Addendum’s
CalEEMod model should have included 1,171 daily trips instead of 1,112 trips. By including an
unsubstantiated reduction to the Project’s daily operational vehicle trips, the model underestimates the
Project’s mobile‐source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
8
Incorrect Application of Construction‐Related Mitigation Measures
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates the model includes the following five (5)
construction‐related mitigation measures: “Replace Ground Cover,” “Water Exposed Area,” “Water
Unpaved Roads,” “Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads,” and “Clean Paved Roads” (see excerpt
below) (Appendix B, pp. 86, 118, 239).
As a result, the model includes a 6% clean paved road reduction, 12% unpaved road moisture content,
and 15 miles per hour (“MPH”) vehicle speed (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 80, 112, 232).
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.13 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non‐Default Data” table, the justification
provided for these changes is: “Per SCAQMD Rules and Regulations” (Appendix B, pp. 79, 111, 231).
Furthermore, in regard to the Project’s construction emissions, the Addendum states:
“Emission data is pulled from ‘mitigated’ results, which include SCAQMD regulatory
requirements including Rule 403 and Rule 1113. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The
Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other
construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed
surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit
speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour” (p. 3.2‐4).
However, as the excerpt above demonstrates, while the Addendum indicates which mitigation measures
were included in the model, the Addendum does not explicitly require the Project to include any of the
above‐mentioned construction‐related mitigation measures. Thus, the Addendum fails to demonstrate a
commitment to the implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of any construction‐related
mitigation measures, and we cannot verify their inclusion in the model.
13 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
9
Furthermore, according to SCAQMD Rule 403, Projects can either water unpaved roads 3 times per day,
water unpaved roads 1 time per day and limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph, or apply a chemical stabilizer
(see excerpt below) (p. 403‐21, Table 2). 14
As you can see in the above excerpt, to simply comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, the Project may either
water unpaved roads 3 times per day, water unpaved roads 1 time per day and limit vehicle speeds to
15 mph, or apply a chemical stabilizer. Thus, none of the measures included in the CalEEMod model are
explicitly required by SCAQMD Rule 403, and we cannot verify their inclusion in the model. By including
construction‐related mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation, the
model may underestimate the Project’s construction‐related emissions and should not be relied upon to
determine Project significance.
Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model incorrectly includes several
mobile‐, area‐, and water‐related operational mitigation measures. As a result, the Project’s operational
emissions may be underestimated, and the model should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
First, the Project’s CalEEMod output files reveal that the model included the following two (2) mobile‐
related operational mitigation measures: “Increase Density” and “Increase Diversity” (see excerpt
below) (Appendix B, pp. 102, 134, 255).
Second, the Project’s CalEEMod output files reveal that the model included the “Use only Natural Gas
Hearths” area‐related operational mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 106, 138
261).
14 “RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST.” SCAQMD, June 2005, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/rule‐
book/rule‐iv/rule‐403.pdf.
10
Third, the Project’s CalEEMod output files reveal that the model included the following five (5) water‐
related operational mitigation measures: “Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet,” “Install Low Flow Kitchen
Faucet,” “Install Low Flow Toilet,” “Install Low Flow Shower,” and “Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
(see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 108, 140, 263).
However, the inclusion of the above‐mentioned energy‐, mobile‐, and water‐related operational
mitigation measures is unsubstantiated according to the relevant guidance. According to the CalEEMod
User’s Guide:
“The mitigation measures included in CalEEMod are largely based on the CAPCOA Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐
content/uploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf)
document. The CAPCOA measure numbers are provided next to the mitigation measures in
CalEEMod to assist the user in understanding each measure by referencing back to the CAPCOA
document.”15
However, review of CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures document
demonstrates that the Addendum fails to substantiate several of the mitigation measures included in
the model (see table below).
Measure Consistency
CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures16
Mobile Measures
15 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 53.
16 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.” CAPCOA, August 2010, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf.
11
Measure LUT‐1 Increase Density
“The reductions in GHG emissions are quantified
based on reductions to VMT. The relationship
between density and VMT is described by its
elasticity.”
% VMT Reduction = A * B, where:
A = % increase in housing units or jobs/acre
B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to density
The following information needs to be provided by
the Project Applicant:
Number of housing units per acre or jobs
per job acre
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s
Guide requires any changes to model defaults
be justified. Here, however, the “User Entered
Comments & Non‐Default Data” table fails to
mention or substantiate the inclusion of this
measure whatsoever (Appendix B, pp. 79, 111,
231). While the Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”)
Emissions Assessment, provided by Appendix D
to the Addendum, states that the Project
“would result in 169 dwelling units per acre
over the 2.715‐acre site,” the Addendum and
associated documents completely fail to
mention or evaluate the increased density
“based on reductions to VMT,” as stated in the
measure (Appendix D, pp. 217). The Addendum
and associated documents also fail to mention
the % increase in housing units or jobs/acre or
the elasticity of VMT with respect to density, as
stated in the measure. Finally, the Addendum
and associated documents fail to provide any
calculations or assumptions used to include this
measure in the model. As such, this measure is
unsubstantiated, and the model should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance.
Measure LUT‐3 Increase Diversity
“Having different types of land uses near one
another can decrease VMT since trips between land
use types are shorter and may be accommodated
by non‐auto modes of transport.”
The following information needs to be provided by
the Project Applicant:
Percentage of each land use type in the
project (to calculate land use index)
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s
Guide requires any changes to model defaults
be justified. Here, however, the “User Entered
Comments & Non‐Default Data” table fails to
mention or substantiate the inclusion of this
measure whatsoever (Appendix B, pp. 79, 111,
231). In regard to Measure LUT‐3, the GHG
Emissions Assessment states: “The measure
requires at least three different land uses
within 0.25 mile. The Project proposes
residential, retail, and restaurant uses, and
there are also residential, retail, and office land
uses within this distance from the Project”
(Appendix D, pp. 217). However, the
Addendum and associated documents fail to
provide the percentage of each land use type in
12
the project to calculate the land use index, as
stated in the measure. As such, this measure is
unsubstantiated, and the model should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance.
Water Measures
Measure WUW‐1 Install Low‐Flow Water Fixtures
“Installing low‐flow or high‐efficiency water fixtures
in buildings reduces water demand, energy
demand, and associated indirect GHG emissions.”
The following information needs to be provided by
the Project Applicant:
Total expected indoor water demand,
without installation of low‐flow or high‐
efficiency fixtures (million gallons), AND
Total expected indoor water demand, after
installation of low‐flow or high‐efficiency
fixtures (million gallons), OR
Commitment to low‐flow or high‐efficiency
water fixtures (toilets, showerheads, sink
faucets, dishwashers, clothes washers, or
all of the above)
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s
Guide requires any changes to model defaults
be justified. Here, however, the “User Entered
Comments & Non‐Default Data” table fails to
mention or substantiate the inclusion of this
measure whatsoever (Appendix B, pp. 79, 111,
231). While the Addendum states that the
proposed Project’s water demand is 29.6 acre‐
feet per year (“AFY”), the Addendum fails to
specify whether this total expected water
demand is after the installation of low‐flow or
high‐efficiency fixtures. Thus, the Addendum
and associated documents fail to provide the
total expected indoor water demand, without
installation of low‐flow or high‐efficiency
fixtures, and total expected indoor water
demand, after installation of low‐flow or high‐
efficiency fixtures, or a commitment to low‐
flow or high‐efficiency water fixtures, as is
required in the measure. Furthermore, the
Addendum states that “[t]he project would
utilize energy‐efficient LED lighting, a drought
tolerant plant palette, and low‐flow water
fixtures to increase building sustainability” (p.
3.5‐3). However, the Addendum only states this
to demonstrate consistency with the City’s
Climate Action Plan (“CAP”). Thus, the Project
fails to include low‐flow water fixtures as a
product design feature or mitigation measure,
and the Addendum fails to demonstrate that
the Project actually intends to install low‐flow
water fixtures at the Project site. As such, this
measure is unsubstantiated, and the model
13
should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Measure WUW‐4 Use Water‐Efficient Landscape
Irrigation Systems
“Using water‐efficient landscape irrigation
techniques such as “smart” irrigation technology
reduces outdoor water demand, energy demand,
and the associated GHG emissions.”
The following information needs to be provided by
the Project Applicant:
Total expected outdoor water demand,
without installation of smart landscape
irrigation controller (million gallons).
(Optional) Project‐specific percent
reduction in outdoor water demand, after
installation of smart landscape irrigation
controller. Percent reduction must be
verifiable. Otherwise, use the default value
of 6.1%.
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s
Guide requires any changes to model defaults
be justified. Here, however, the “User Entered
Comments & Non‐Default Data” table fails to
mention or substantiate the inclusion of this
measure whatsoever (Appendix B, pp. 79, 111,
231). Furthermore, the Addendum states that
“water‐efficient irrigation systems would be
used” (p. 3.5‐4). However, the Addendum only
states this to demonstrate consistency with
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Thus, the Project
fails to include water‐efficient landscape
irrigation systems as a product design feature
or mitigation measure, and the Addendum fails
to demonstrate that the Project actually
intends to implement water‐efficient landscape
irrigation techniques at the Project site.
Furthermore, the Addendum and associated
documents fail to provide the total expected
outdoor water demand, without installation of
smart landscape irrigation controller and/or the
Project‐specific percent reduction in outdoor
water demand, after installation of smart
landscape irrigation controller, as required in
the measure. As such, this measure is
unsubstantiated, and the model should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance.
As shown above, the Addendum fails to justify several of the mitigation measures utilized in the
Project’s CalEEMod model according to the relevant guidance. As a result, the inclusion of these
measures in the model is unsubstantiated and the model should not be relied upon to determine the
significance of GHG impacts from the Project.
Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The Addendum concludes that the Project’s health risk impacts would be less than significant without
conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment (“HRA”) (p. 6). Specifically,
regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the Addendum states:
14
“California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short‐term
health effects from DPM. Construction activities would be temporary and transient throughout
the site (i.e., move from location to location), and would not generate emissions in a fixed
location for extended periods of time. Construction activities would also be subject to and
would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy‐duty construction
equipment to no more than five minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure
to temporary and variable DPM emissions. As such, project construction DPM impacts to
sensitive receptors would be less than significant and would not result in a substantial increase
in the severity of DMP impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2010 FEIR” (p. 3.2‐7).
However, the Addendum’s evaluation of the Project’s health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less
than significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four (4) reasons.
First, the Addendum’s claims that the health risk impacts associated with Project construction would be
less than significant because Project construction “would be temporary and transient,” “would not
generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time,” and “would also be subject to and
would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy‐duty construction equipment” are
unsupported. As the Addendum fails to provide substantial evidence, including sources or calculations,
to substantiate these claims, we are unable to verify that they are correct. Without providing a
quantified construction HRA, the Addendum lacks substantial evidence to demonstrate that health risk
impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant.
Second, by failing to prepare a construction HRA, the Project is inconsistent with the most recent
guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the
organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. OEHHA released its
most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in
February 2015.17 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation
of an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), a
human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a construction period of
approximately 21‐ to 24‐months (p. 2‐11). The OEHHA document recommends that all short‐term
projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.18 As the
Project’s proposed 21‐ to 24‐month construction duration vastly exceeds the 2‐month requirement set
forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold requiring a quantified HRA under OEHHA
guidance (p. 2‐11). Thus, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction be
evaluated in an EIR, per OEHHA guidelines, in order to determine the nature and extent of the Project’s
health risk impacts.
Third, the Addendum fails to mention or evaluate the potential health risk impacts associated with
Project operation whatsoever. As previously stated, the TIA indicates that Project operation would
17 “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
18 “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. 8‐18
15
generate 1,112 daily vehicle trips, or 1,171 daily vehicle trips without the non‐auto trip adjustment,
which will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to
DPM emissions (Appendix F, p. 10, Table 5‐1). Furthermore, the omission of a quantified operational
HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). 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”).19 Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we
can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we
recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30‐year exposure
duration vastly exceeds the 6‐month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect
the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an updated assessment of
health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project operation be included in an EIR for
the Project.
Fourth, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified HRA to disclose the
exposure levels to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation,
the Addendum fails to compare the excess health risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10
in one million.20 Thus, the Addendum cannot conclude less than significant health risk impacts resulting
from Project construction and operation without quantifying emissions to compare to the proper
threshold.
Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts
In an effort to accurately estimate the emissions associated with the Project, we prepared an updated
CalEEMod model, using the Project‐specific information provided by the Addendum. In our updated
model, we corrected the CO2 intensity factor, residential land use size, and operational vehicle trip rates;
proportionally revised the construction phase lengths to achieve an overall construction period of 21
months; and omitted the unsubstantiated construction‐related and operational mitigation measures.
Utilizing our updated model, and in an effort to demonstrate the potential health risk posed by Project
construction and operation to nearby, existing sensitive receptors utilizing a site‐specific emissions
estimates, we prepared a simple screening‐level HRA. The results of our assessment as described below,
demonstrate that the proposed Project may result in a significant impact not previously identified or
addressed in the Addendum.
In order to conduct our screening‐level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening
level air quality dispersion model.21 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the
19 “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
20 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf.
21 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
16
OEHHA22 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)23 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 construction and operational health‐related impact to
residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE CalEEMod
output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure
begins during the third trimester stage of life. SWAPE’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction
activities will generate approximately 188 pounds of DPM over the 636‐day construction period. The
AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward
concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in
equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate
by the following equation:
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁൌ 188.4 𝑙𝑏𝑠
636 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ൈ 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑙𝑏𝑠 ൈ 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ൈ 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 ൌ 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟓𝟔 𝒈/𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.001556 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 636‐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 28.26 years, approximately. The Project’s operational CalEEMod emissions
indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 64 pounds of DPM per year throughout
operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the
following emission rate for Project operation:
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁൌ 64.4 𝑙𝑏𝑠
365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ൈ 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝑙𝑏𝑠 ൈ 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ൈ 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 ൌ 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟐𝟔 𝒈/𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000926 g/s. Construction and
operational activity was simulated as a 2.72‐acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions
of 157 by 70 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
22 “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
23 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8‐6‐09.pdf.
17
concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single‐hour concentration by 10%.24
According to the Addendum, the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 55 feet, or 17
meters, from the Project boundary (p. 3.2‐6). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files
demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 75 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single‐
hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 3.914 µg/m3
DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get
an annualized average concentration of 0.3914 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project
operation, the single‐hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 2.332 µg/m3 DPM at approximately
75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average
concentration of 0.2332 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA. Consistent with the Addendum’s proposed 21‐ to 24‐month construction schedule, the
annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of
pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.49 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years) (p. 2‐11). The
annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30‐year exposure
period, which makes up the remaining 0.51 years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of
life (2 – 16 years), and the entire the adult stage of life (16 – 30 years).
Consistent with OEHHA, as recommended by the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used
Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASF”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the
carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.25, 26, 27 According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk should
be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of
life (infant) as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 – 16 years). We also
included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children
to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003. This
guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD, the
air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore,
in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for
24 “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.
25 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058).” SCAQMD,
March 2019, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/comment‐
letters/2019/march/RVC190115‐03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4.
26 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en, p.
56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2011,
available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approac
h.ashx, p. 65, 86.
27 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance
Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff‐report‐5‐28‐15.pdf, p. 8,
20, 24.
18
infants.28 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) Value of
1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.29 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg‐day)‐1 and
an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below.
The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR)
Activity Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg‐day)
Cancer Risk
without ASFs* ASF
Cancer
Risk with
ASFs*
Construction 0.25 0.3914 361 5.3E‐07 10 5.3E‐06
3rd Trimester
Duration 0.25 5.3E‐07 3rd Trimester
Exposure 5.3E‐06
Construction 1.49 0.3914 1090 9.6E‐06 10 9.6E‐05
Operation 0.51 0.2332 1090 1.9E‐06 10 1.9E‐05
Infant Exposure
Duration 2.00 1.2E‐05 Infant
Exposure 1.2E‐04
Operation 14.00 0.2332 572 2.8E‐05 3 8.4E‐05
Child Exposure
Duration 14.00 2.8E‐05 Child
Exposure 8.4E‐05
Operation 14.00 0.2332 261 9.4E‐06 1 9.4E‐06
Adult Exposure
Duration 14.00 9.4E‐06 Adult
Exposure 9.4E‐06
Lifetime Exposure
Duration 30.00 5.0E‐05 Lifetime
Exposure 2.1E‐04
* We, along with CARB and SCAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd
trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project
construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 9.4, 84, 120, and 5.3 in
one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years),
utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 210 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer
risks all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant
impact not previously addressed or identified by the Addendum. Utilizing age sensitivity factors is the
most conservative, health‐protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and
reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in
28 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act,” July 2018, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/planning/risk‐
assessment/ab2588supplementalguidelines.pdf, p. 16.
“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
29 “Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/rule‐book/Proposed‐
Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7.
19
the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis.
Regardless, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy
at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction and
operation, without age sensitivity factors, are approximately 9.4, 28, 12, and 0.53 in one million,
respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), without age
sensitivity factors, is approximately 50 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks, without
age sensitivity factors, all exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Addendum. While we
recommend the use of age sensitivity factors, health risk impacts exceed the SCAQMD threshold
regardless.
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. 30 The purpose of the screening‐level
construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed
Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening‐level HRA demonstrates that
construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact,
when correct exposure assumptions and up‐to‐date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our
screening‐level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City should prepare a Project‐specific
EIR with an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the
potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified
air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately
and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The Addendum estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,493 metric
tons of CO2 equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 3.5‐2, Table 3.5‐1). As a result, the Addendum
concludes that the Project would result in a service population efficiency value of 2.0 metric tons of CO2
equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”), based on a service population value of
747 people (see excerpt below) (p. 3.5‐2, Table 3.5‐1).
30 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1‐5
20
However, the Addendum fails to compare the Project’s emissions to the relevant SCAQMD quantitative
GHG threshold, instead relying upon the City of Santa Ana’s 2010 Programmatic Final EIR (“FEIR”),
stating:
“[T]he project would not result in any new or substantially more severe GHG emissions impacts
than what was analyzed in the 2010 FEIR and project GHG emissions would not be significant”
(p. 3.5‐2).
Finally, the Addendum relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City of Santa Ana’s Climate Action
Plan (“CAP”) and CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less
than significant GHG impact (p. 3.5‐3 ‐ 3.5‐4). However, the Addendum’s quantitative and qualitative
GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less than significant impact conclusion, are incorrect for seven
(7) reasons.
(1) The Addendum’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air
model;
(2) The Addendum’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an overestimated service population;
(3) The Addendum fails to apply the relevant SCAQMD quantitative GHG threshold;
(4) The Addendum fails to identify a potentially significant GHG impact;
(5) The Addendum incorrectly relies upon the City’s CAP;
(6) The Addendum fails to demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s Scoping
Plan; and
(7) SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.
21
(1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative GHG Analysis
As discussed above, the Addendum estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG
emissions of 1,493 MT CO2e/year, resulting in a service population efficiency of 2.0 MT CO2e/SP/year (p.
3.5‐2, Table 3.5‐1). However, the Addendum’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon, as it
relies upon an unsubstantiated air model. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's
CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Assessment as Appendix B to the Addendum, we
found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in
the Addendum and associated documents. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s GHG
emissions, and the Addendum’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine
Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that
construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
(2) Reliance Upon an Overestimated Service Population
As discussed above, the Addendum concludes that the Project would result in a service population
efficiency value of 2.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, based on a service population value of 747 people (p. 3.5‐2,
Table 3.5‐1). However, the Addendum’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated, as it relies upon
an unsupported service population of 747 people. 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.”31 The Addendum indicates that the proposed Project would provide housng
for up to 507 residents, “[u]sing the household size ratio from the 2010 FEIR of 3.0 persons per
household” (p. 3.9‐5). However, this household size ratio should not be relied upon as it is from
approximately 10 years ago and fails to take into account the type of housing development or number
of units per structure. Rather, the more recent 2020 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
(“DPEIR”) for the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update reveals that this value is incorrect. Rather, the
DPEIR indicates that structures including over 50 units would have household size ratios of 2.77‐ and
2.45‐persons per household 2018 and 2045, respectively (see excerpt below).32
31 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71‐72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA‐White‐Paper.pdf.
32 “Santa Ana General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.” August 2020, available at:
https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general‐
plan/documents/Draft%20EIR/Complete%20Draft%20PEIR.pdf, p. B‐b‐11, Table 4.
22
Thus, the Addendum should have relied upon a household size ratio of 2.45‐persons per household, in
order to maintain consistency with the City’s General Plan and conduct the most conservative analysis.
As such, the Addendum should have estimated a residential service population value of 407 people.33
Furthermore, the Addendum fails to disclose any calculations used to estimate the number of jobs
supported by the Project. However, the DPEIR indicates that commercial land uses generate
approximately 1 employee per 500‐SF of building space (see excerpt below).34
As such, we estimate that the Project would create approximately 23 new employees.35 Thus, we
estimate that the Project’s total service population would be approximately 430 people.36 As a result,
the Addendum’s service population is overestimated, and the subsequent quantitative GHG analysis
should not be relied upon.
(3) Failure to Apply the Relevant SCAQMD Threshold
As discussed above, the Addendum estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG
emissions of 1,493 MT CO2e/year, resulting in a service population efficiency value of 2.0 MT
CO2e/SP/year (p. 3.5‐2, Table 3.5‐1). However, while the Addendum quantifies the Project’s GHG
emissions, the Addendum fails to mention or compare the Project’s annual GHG emissions to the
applicable SCAQMD thresholds. This is incorrect, as the SCAQMD provides GHG thresholds that can be
used to determine a project’s significance.
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32, enacting HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 38566.37
This statute (“SB 32”) requires California to achieve a new, more aggressive 40% reduction in GHG
33 Calculated: 169 units * 2.41 persons per household = 407 residents.
34 “Santa Ana General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.” August 2020, available at:
https://www.santa‐ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general‐
plan/documents/Draft%20EIR/Complete%20Draft%20PEIR.pdf, p. B‐b‐11, Table 3.
35 Calculated: (3,850‐SF of “High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)” + 7,510‐SF of “Strip Mall”) / (500 SF/Employee) =
23 employees.
36 Calculated: 23 employees + 407 residents = 430 people.
37 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38566, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=38566.
23
emissions over the 1990 level by the end of 2030. As a result, the Project should comply with SB 32,
which requires a more aggressive GHG threshold. Thus, we recommend that the Project rely upon the
SCAQMD efficiency threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/year for the year 2035, which was calculated based on a
40% reduction from the 2020 GHG efficient target.38 By failing to compare the Project’s estimated GHG
emissions to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, the Addendum leaves a gap in its quantitative GHG analysis.
(4) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact
The Addendum’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact,
when applying the relevant SCAQMD efficiency threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/year for the year 2035.39
Specifically, the Addendum estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of
1,493 MT CO2e/year (p. 3.5‐2, Table 3.5‐1). Furthermore, as described above, we estimate that the
Project’s service population would be 430 people. Dividing the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by
the Addendum, by a service population value of 430 people, we find that the Project would emit
approximately 3.47 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).40
Addendum Service Population Efficiency
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Total 1493.00
Service Population 430
Service Population Efficiency 3.47
Threshold 3.0
Exceed? Yes
When we compare the Project’s per service population GHG emissions to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency
target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, we find that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact not
previously identified or addressed by the Addendum. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b), if
there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively
considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, a full CEQA
analysis must be prepared for the project. Therefore, a Project‐specific EIR should be prepared and
recirculated for the Project, and mitigation should be implemented where necessary, per CEQA
Guidelines.
(5) Incorrect Reliance on the City’s CAP
As previously mentioned, the Addendum relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City’s CAP in
order to conclude that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact (p. 3.5‐3 ‐ 3.5‐3).
38 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September
2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse‐gases‐(ghg)‐ceqa‐
significance‐thresholds/year‐2008‐2009/ghg‐meeting‐15/ghg‐meeting‐15‐minutes.pdf, p. 2.
39 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September
2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse‐gases‐(ghg)‐ceqa‐
significance‐thresholds/year‐2008‐2009/ghg‐meeting‐15/ghg‐meeting‐15‐minutes.pdf, p. 2.
40 Calculated: (1,493 MT CO2e/year) / (430 service population) = (3.47 MT CO2e/SP/year).
24
However, review of the City’s CAP demonstrates that the CAP is designed to help the City achieve it’s
2020 GHG reduction goal and needs to be updated in order to meet the City’s 2035 GHG reduction
goal.41 Specifically, the CAP states:
“The measures in this CAP are projected to accomplish the goal of a 15% reduction in
community‐wide emissions by 2020, and to nearly reach the 30% reduction by 2035 goal, as
shown in Figure 3.1. It is anticipated that new policy and technology options for reducing
emissions may become available before 2035; the CAP will need to be updated and additional
measures may need to be added to meet the 2035 goal. The CAP measures affecting municipal
operations are projected to accomplish both the 30% reduction by 2020 goal and the 40%
reduction by 2035 goal” (emphasis added).42
As such, the City of Santa Ana’s CAP is only applicable to projects that will be fully operational by 2020,
as the CAP should be updated to meet the City’s 2035 GHG reduction goal. Given that it is already
October 2020 and the Project has yet to be approved, we know that the Project will not become
operational by 2020. Thus, the City’s CAP is inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the Addendum’s
reliance upon the City’s CAP is incorrect. As a result, the Addendum’s less than significant impact
conclusion regarding the City’s CAP should not be relied upon.
(6) Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan
As discussed above, the Addendum relies upon the Project’s consistency with the CARB’s 2017 Scoping
Plan in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact (p. 3.5‐3 ‐
3.5‐4). However, review of CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan reveals that the proposed Project is inconsistent
with numerous measures, including but not limited to the analysis below:
CARB 2017 Scoping Plan43
Measures – Construction
Require construction vehicles to operate with the
highest tier engines commercially available
Here, the Addendum states that “[a]pplicable
construction mitigation measures include all diesel
fuel construction equipment classified U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Tier II
or better” (p. 3.5‐1). However, Tier 4 Final engines
are the highest tier commercially available. As
such, the Project fails to require construction
vehicles to operate with the highest tier engines
commercially available, as the measure requires.
Furthermore, the Addendum fails to evaluate the
41 “Santa Ana Climate Action Plan.” ICLEI‐USA, December 2015, available at: https://www.santa‐
ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/climate_action_plan.pdf, p. 26.
42 “Santa Ana Climate Action Plan.” ICLEI‐USA, December 2015, available at: https://www.santa‐
ana.org/sites/default/files/Documents/climate_action_plan.pdf, p. 26.
43 California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) (Jan. 2017) 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B‐Local Action, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_appb_localaction_final.pdf, p. 8‐10.
25
feasibility of implementing this measure. As such,
we are unable to verify that it will actually be
implemented, monitored, and enforced on the
Project site. As such, the proposed Project is not
consistent with this measure and the Addendum
lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Divert and recycle construction and demolition
waste, and use locally‐sourced building materials
with a high recycled material content to the
greatest extent feasible
Here, while the Addendum briefly discusses
Mitigation Measure 4.13‐6 which incorporates the
“reuse and recycling of construction and
demolition waste,” the Addendum and associated
documents fail to demonstrate that the Project will
implement, monitor, and enforce this measure on
the Project site (p. 3.5‐1). Furthermore, the
Addendum also fails to mention or discuss the
feasibility of using locally‐sourced building
materials with a high recycled material content, as
the measure indicates. As such, the proposed
Project is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Minimize tree removal, and mitigate indirect GHG
emissions increases that occur due to vegetation
removal, loss of sequestration, and soil disturbance
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or minimize tree removal
whatsoever. Furthermore, the Addendum and
associated documents fail to mitigate the indirect
GHG emissions increases that occur due to
vegetation removal, loss of sequestration, and soil
disturbance, as the measure discusses. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Increase use of electric and renewable fuel
powered construction equipment and require
renewable diesel fuel where commercially
available
Here, while the Addendum mentions using electric
construction equipment, the Addendum fails to
mention or require renewable diesel fuel where
commercially available, as the measure states (p.
3.4‐2). As such, the proposed Project is not
consistent with this measure and the Addendum
lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require diesel equipment fleets to be lower
emitting than any current emission standard
Here, the Addendum fails to evaluate the feasibility
of or require diesel equipment fleets to be lower
emitting, as the measure discusses. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Measures – Operation
26
Require on‐site EV charging capabilities for parking
spaces serving the project to meet jurisdiction‐
wide EV proliferation goals.
Here, the GHG Assessment states that “[t]he
Project includes energy efficient features in
compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards such as energy efficient appliances and
electric vehicle charging stations” (Appendix D, pp.
225). However, the GHG Assessment states this
only to demonstrate consistency with the City’s
CAP, and does not include EV charging spaces in
the Project description or design features.
Furthermore, the Addendum fails to demonstrate
that the Project will actually implement, monitor,
and enforce this measure at the Project site. As
such, the proposed Project is not consistent with
this measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Allow for new construction to install fewer on‐site
parking spaces than required by local municipal
building code, if appropriate
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or allow the Project to install fewer
on‐site parking spaces than required by local
municipal building code. As such, the proposed
Project is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Dedicate on‐site parking for shared vehicles Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require on‐site parking for
shared vehicles. As such, the proposed Project is
not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require on‐site renewable energy generation Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require on‐site renewable energy
generation. As such, the proposed Project is not
consistent with this measure and the Addendum
lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require cool roofs and “cool parking” that
promotes cool surface treatment for new parking
facilities as well as existing surface lots undergoing
resurfacing
Here, while the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, provided as Appendix K to the
Addendum, states that the Project will exceed
current Cool Roof Coatings performance standards,
the Addendum and associated documents fail to
mention or require “cool parking,” as the measure
states (Appendix K, pp. 1,734). Furthermore, the
Addendum and associated documents fail to
mention or require that existing surface lots
undergo resurfacing. As such, the proposed Project
is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
27
Require organic collection in new developments Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require organic collection in new
developments whatsoever. As such, the proposed
Project is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Achieve Zero Net Energy performance building
standards prior to dates required by the Energy
Code
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to demonstrate that the Project would achieve
Zero Net Energy performance building standards
prior to dates required by the Energy Code, as the
measure describes. As such, the proposed Project
is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require preferential parking spaces for park and
ride to incentivize carpooling, vanpooling,
commuter bus, electric vehicles, and rail service
use
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require preferential parking
spaces for park and ride to incentivize carpooling,
vanpooling, commuter bus, electric vehicles, and
rail service use, as the measure states. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Require a transportation management plan for
specific plans which establishes a numeric target
for non‐SOV travel and overall VMT
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require a transportation
management plan for specific plans which
establishes a numeric target for non‐SOV travel
and overall VMT, as the measure indicates. As
such, the proposed Project is not consistent with
this measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Develop a rideshare program targeting commuters
to major employment centers
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require the development of a
rideshare program targeting commuters to major
employment centers. As such, the proposed
Project is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require the design of bus stops/shelters/express
lanes in new developments to promote the usage
of mass‐transit
Here, while Addendum states that “[t]he location
of the project site is in close proximity to several
bus stops,” the Addendum and associated
documents fail to mention or require the design of
bus stops/shelters/express lanes in new
developments to promote the usage of mass‐
transit (p. 3.4‐6). As such, the proposed Project is
not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
28
Require gas outlets in residential backyards for use
with outdoor cooking appliances such as gas
barbeques if natural gas service is available
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require gas outlets in residential
backyards for use with outdoor cooking appliances
such as gas barbeques if natural gas service is
available. As such, the proposed Project is not
consistent with this measure and the Addendum
lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require the installation of electrical outlets on the
exterior walls of both the front and back of
residences to promote the use of electric
landscape maintenance equipment
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require electrical outlets on the
exterior walls of both the front and back of
residences to promote the use of electric
landscape maintenance equipment. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Require the design of the electric outlets and/or
wiring in new residential unit garages to promote
electric vehicle usage
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require the design of the electric
outlets and/or wiring in new residential unit
garages to promote electric vehicle usage. As such,
the proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Require the installation of energy conserving
appliances such as on‐demand tank‐less water
heaters and whole‐house fans
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require the installation of energy
conserving appliances such as on‐demand tank‐less
water heaters and whole‐house fans, as the
measure indicates. As such, the proposed Project is
not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require each residential and commercial building
equip buildings with energy efficient AC units and
heating systems with programmable
thermostats/timers
Here, the Addendum states that “[n]atural gas and
electricity would be used for heating and cooling
systems” (p. 3.4‐3). As such, the Addendum fails to
mention or specify that such heating and cooling
systems are energy efficient, as the measure
specifies. Furthermore, the Addendum and
associated documents fail to mention or require
that each residential or commercial building have
AC units and heating systems with programmable
thermostats/timers. As such, the proposed Project
is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require large‐scale residential developments and
commercial buildings to report energy use, and set
specific targets for per‐capita energy use
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require that the Project report
energy use, or set specific targets for per‐capita
29
energy use. As such, the proposed Project is not
consistent with this measure and the Addendum
lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require the use of energy‐efficient lighting for all
street, parking, and area lighting
Here, the while the Addendum states that the
“project would use utilize energy‐efficient LED
lighting,” the Addendum and associated
documents fail to mention or specify that energy‐
efficient lighting would be require for all street,
parking, and area lighting, as the measure states
(p. 3.5‐3). As such, the proposed Project is not
consistent with this measure and the Addendum
lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require the landscaping design for parking lots to
utilize tree cover and compost/mulch
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require the landscaping design
for parking lots to utilize tree cover and
compost/mulch, as the measure indicates. As such,
the proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Incorporate water retention in the design of
parking lots and landscaping, including using
compost/mulch
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or incorporate water retention in
the design of parking lots and landscaping,
including using compost/mulch. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
Require the development project to propose an
off‐site mitigation project which should generate
carbon credits equivalent to the anticipated GHG
emission reductions. This would be implemented
via an approved protocol for carbon credits from
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA), the California Air Resources Board, or
other similar entities determined acceptable by the
local air district
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to mention or require the Project to propose an
off‐site mitigation project to generate carbon
credits, as required. As such, the proposed Project
is not consistent with this measure and the
Addendum lacks substantial evidence to support its
consistency determination.
Require the project to purchase carbon credits
from the CAPCOA GHG Reduction Exchange
Program, American Carbon Registry (ACR), Climate
Action Reserve (CAR) or other similar carbon credit
registry determined to be acceptable by the local
air district
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to require the Project to purchase carbon
credits whatsoever. In addition, the Addendum and
associated documents fail to mention the CAPCOA
GHG Reduction Exchange Program, ACR, CAR, or
other similar carbon credit registries. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
30
Consider generating or purchasing local and
California‐only carbon credits as the preferred
mechanism to implement its offsite mitigation
measure for GHG emissions and that will facilitate
the State’s efforts in achieving the GHG emission
reduction goal
Here, the Addendum and associated documents
fail to consider or indicate that the proposed
Project will generate or purchase any local or
California‐only carbon credits. As such, the
proposed Project is not consistent with this
measure and the Addendum lacks substantial
evidence to support its consistency determination.
As the above table indicates, the Addendum and associated documents fail to provide sufficient
information and analysis to determine Project consistency with various measures under CARB’s 2017
Scoping Plan. Thus, we cannot verify that the Project would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping
Plan, as stated in the Addendum. As a result, we recommend that an EIR be prepared to include further
information and analysis demonstrating the Project’s consistency.
(7) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact
Applicable thresholds and site‐specific modeling demonstrate that the proposed Project would result in
a significant GHG impact not previously mitigated by the Addendum. The CalEEMod output files,
modeled by SWAPE with Project‐specific information, disclose the Project’s mitigated emissions, which
include approximately 996 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2021, 2022, and 2023) and
approximately 1,993 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile,
waste, and water‐related emissions), for a net annual GHG emissions of 2,026 MT CO2e/year.
Furthermore, as described above, we estimate that the Project’s total service population would be
approximately 430 people. When dividing the Project’s GHG emissions (amortized construction +
operational) by a service population value of 430 people, we find that the Project would emit
approximately 4.71 MT CO2e/SP/year.44 As demonstrated in the table below, the service population
efficiency value of 4.71 MT CO2e/SP/year exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT
CO2e/SP/year (see table below).45
SWAPE Service Population Efficiency
Project Phase
Proposed
Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 33.21
Area 37.63
Energy 599.40
Mobile 1,214.56
Waste 66.11
Water 75.23
44 Calculated: (2,026.12 MT CO2e/year) / (430 service population) = (4.71 MT CO2e/SP/year).
45 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September
2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse‐gases‐(ghg)‐ceqa‐
significance‐thresholds/year‐2008‐2009/ghg‐meeting‐15/ghg‐meeting‐15‐minutes.pdf, p. 2.
31
Total 2,026.12
Service Population 430
Service Population Efficiency 4.71
Threshold 3
Exceed? Yes
As the above table indicates, the Project’s service population efficiency exceeds the SCAQMD 2035
efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, respectively, thus resulting in a significant impact not
previously mitigated in the Addendum. As previously stated, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b),
if there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively
considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, a full CEQA
analysis must be prepared for the project. Therefore, a Project‐specific EIR should be prepared and
recirculated for the Project, and mitigation should be implemented where necessary, per CEQA
Guidelines.
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.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 422.00 Space 1.23 168,800.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)3.85 1000sqft 0.09 3,850.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 169.00 Dwelling Unit 1.23 176,178.00 483
Strip Mall 7.51 1000sqft 0.17 7,510.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
8
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
513 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project
Orange County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 1 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment about CO2 intensity factor.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment about residential land use size. 93,117-SF residential space (Block A) + 8,075-SF leasing/amenity space (Block A) + 74,986-
SF residential space (Block B) = 176,178-SF total residential land use space modeled as "Apartments Mid Rise."
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment about construction schedule.
Grading -
Vehicle Trips - See SWAPE comment about trip rates.
Woodstoves - Consistent with Addendum's model.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about construction-related mitigation measures.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
Area Mitigation - Consistent with Addendum's model.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
Waste Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 2 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 372.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 34.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 5.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 8.45 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 169,000.00 176,178.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.80 1.23
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.45 1.23
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 702.44 513
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 4.73
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 65.25
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 16.11
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.73
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 65.25
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 16.11
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.73
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.25
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 16.11
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 8.45 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 8.45 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 3 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1045 0.8935 0.7497 1.7100e-
003
0.0880 0.0405 0.1285 0.0310 0.0381 0.0691 0.0000 151.2375 151.2375 0.0244 0.0000 151.8484
2022 0.3460 2.5175 2.7126 7.2600e-
003
0.3204 0.0942 0.4146 0.0860 0.0902 0.1762 0.0000 645.2843 645.2843 0.0685 0.0000 646.9956
2023 0.7275 0.7155 0.8662 2.2200e-
003
0.0950 0.0274 0.1224 0.0255 0.0261 0.0516 0.0000 196.7344 196.7344 0.0230 0.0000 197.3082
Maximum 0.7275 2.5175 2.7126 7.2600e-
003
0.3204 0.0942 0.4146 0.0860 0.0902 0.1762 0.0000 645.2843 645.2843 0.0685 0.0000 646.9956
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1045 0.8935 0.7497 1.7100e-
003
0.0880 0.0405 0.1285 0.0310 0.0381 0.0691 0.0000 151.2374 151.2374 0.0244 0.0000 151.8483
2022 0.3460 2.5175 2.7126 7.2600e-
003
0.3204 0.0942 0.4146 0.0860 0.0902 0.1762 0.0000 645.2840 645.2840 0.0685 0.0000 646.9953
2023 0.7275 0.7155 0.8662 2.2200e-
003
0.0950 0.0274 0.1224 0.0255 0.0261 0.0516 0.0000 196.7343 196.7343 0.0230 0.0000 197.3081
Maximum 0.7275 2.5175 2.7126 7.2600e-
003
0.3204 0.0942 0.4146 0.0860 0.0902 0.1762 0.0000 645.2840 645.2840 0.0685 0.0000 646.9953
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 4 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 0.7218 0.7218
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 0.7295 0.7295
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.7210 0.7210
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.7196 0.7196
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.7145 0.7145
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.6599 0.6599
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0554 1.0554
Highest 1.0554 1.0554
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 5 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.8078 0.0499 1.7614 2.8000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 37.3534 37.3534 3.4300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
37.6275
Energy 0.0159 0.1387 0.0796 8.7000e-
004
0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0000 596.3117 596.3117 0.0278 8.0200e-
003
599.3968
Mobile 0.2587 0.9624 3.3577 0.0132 1.2533 9.1600e-
003
1.2624 0.3356 8.5000e-
003
0.3441 0.0000 1,213.332
6
1,213.332
6
0.0490 0.0000 1,214.556
7
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.6832 0.0000 26.6832 1.5769 0.0000 66.1064
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0405 57.6087 61.6492 0.4183 0.0105 75.2265
Total 1.0824 1.1510 5.1987 0.0143 1.2533 0.0322 1.2855 0.3356 0.0316 0.3672 30.7237 1,904.606
3
1,935.330
0
2.0754 0.0191 1,992.913
9
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 6 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.8078 0.0499 1.7614 2.8000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 37.3534 37.3534 3.4300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
37.6275
Energy 0.0159 0.1387 0.0796 8.7000e-
004
0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0000 596.3117 596.3117 0.0278 8.0200e-
003
599.3968
Mobile 0.2587 0.9624 3.3577 0.0132 1.2533 9.1600e-
003
1.2624 0.3356 8.5000e-
003
0.3441 0.0000 1,213.332
6
1,213.332
6
0.0490 0.0000 1,214.556
7
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.6832 0.0000 26.6832 1.5769 0.0000 66.1064
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0405 57.6087 61.6492 0.4183 0.0105 75.2265
Total 1.0824 1.1510 5.1987 0.0143 1.2533 0.0322 1.2855 0.3356 0.0316 0.3672 30.7237 1,904.606
3
1,935.330
0
2.0754 0.0191 1,992.913
9
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 7 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/18/2021 5 34
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/19/2021 10/25/2021 5 5
3 Grading Grading 10/26/2021 11/8/2021 5 10
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/9/2021 4/12/2023 5 372
5 Paving Paving 4/13/2023 5/5/2023 5 17
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/6/2023 5/30/2023 5 17
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 356,760; Residential Outdoor: 118,920; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,040; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,680; Striped Parking
Area: 10,128 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 5
Acres of Paving: 1.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 8 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 9 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0339 0.3348 0.2464 4.1000e-
004
0.0177 0.0177 0.0165 0.0165 0.0000 35.8213 35.8213 9.1600e-
003
0.0000 36.0503
Total 0.0339 0.3348 0.2464 4.1000e-
004
0.0177 0.0177 0.0165 0.0165 0.0000 35.8213 35.8213 9.1600e-
003
0.0000 36.0503
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 197.00 48.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 39.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 10 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.1000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
6.3500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.0270 2.0270 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0281
Total 8.1000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
6.3500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.0270 2.0270 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0281
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0339 0.3348 0.2464 4.1000e-
004
0.0177 0.0177 0.0165 0.0165 0.0000 35.8212 35.8212 9.1600e-
003
0.0000 36.0502
Total 0.0339 0.3348 0.2464 4.1000e-
004
0.0177 0.0177 0.0165 0.0165 0.0000 35.8212 35.8212 9.1600e-
003
0.0000 36.0502
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 11 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.1000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
6.3500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.0270 2.0270 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0281
Total 8.1000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
6.3500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4300e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.0270 2.0270 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0281
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.9800e-
003
0.0000 3.9800e-
003
4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8700e-
003
0.0457 0.0269 6.0000e-
005
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.6100e-
003
1.6100e-
003
0.0000 5.3816 5.3816 1.7400e-
003
0.0000 5.4251
Total 3.8700e-
003
0.0457 0.0269 6.0000e-
005
3.9800e-
003
1.7500e-
003
5.7300e-
003
4.3000e-
004
1.6100e-
003
2.0400e-
003
0.0000 5.3816 5.3816 1.7400e-
003
0.0000 5.4251
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 12 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1834 0.1834 0.0000 0.0000 0.1835
Total 7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1834 0.1834 0.0000 0.0000 0.1835
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.9800e-
003
0.0000 3.9800e-
003
4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8700e-
003
0.0457 0.0269 6.0000e-
005
1.7500e-
003
1.7500e-
003
1.6100e-
003
1.6100e-
003
0.0000 5.3816 5.3816 1.7400e-
003
0.0000 5.4251
Total 3.8700e-
003
0.0457 0.0269 6.0000e-
005
3.9800e-
003
1.7500e-
003
5.7300e-
003
4.3000e-
004
1.6100e-
003
2.0400e-
003
0.0000 5.3816 5.3816 1.7400e-
003
0.0000 5.4251
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 13 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1834 0.1834 0.0000 0.0000 0.1835
Total 7.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1834 0.1834 0.0000 0.0000 0.1835
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0328 0.0000 0.0328 0.0168 0.0000 0.0168 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.1400e-
003
0.1011 0.0488 1.0000e-
004
4.5800e-
003
4.5800e-
003
4.2100e-
003
4.2100e-
003
0.0000 9.0519 9.0519 2.9300e-
003
0.0000 9.1251
Total 9.1400e-
003
0.1011 0.0488 1.0000e-
004
0.0328 4.5800e-
003
0.0373 0.0168 4.2100e-
003
0.0211 0.0000 9.0519 9.0519 2.9300e-
003
0.0000 9.1251
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 14 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4586 0.4586 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4588
Total 1.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4586 0.4586 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4588
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0328 0.0000 0.0328 0.0168 0.0000 0.0168 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.1400e-
003
0.1011 0.0488 1.0000e-
004
4.5800e-
003
4.5800e-
003
4.2100e-
003
4.2100e-
003
0.0000 9.0519 9.0519 2.9300e-
003
0.0000 9.1251
Total 9.1400e-
003
0.1011 0.0488 1.0000e-
004
0.0328 4.5800e-
003
0.0373 0.0168 4.2100e-
003
0.0211 0.0000 9.0519 9.0519 2.9300e-
003
0.0000 9.1251
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 15 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4586 0.4586 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4588
Total 1.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4586 0.4586 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4588
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0399 0.3125 0.2840 4.9000e-
004
0.0159 0.0159 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 40.4915 40.4915 7.9700e-
003
0.0000 40.6907
Total 0.0399 0.3125 0.2840 4.9000e-
004
0.0159 0.0159 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 40.4915 40.4915 7.9700e-
003
0.0000 40.6907
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 16 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.5500e-
003
0.0892 0.0250 2.3000e-
004
5.8900e-
003
1.9000e-
004
6.0800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.8800e-
003
0.0000 22.5883 22.5883 1.8300e-
003
0.0000 22.6341
Worker 0.0141 9.4600e-
003
0.1104 3.9000e-
004
0.0422 2.8000e-
004
0.0425 0.0112 2.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0000 35.2338 35.2338 7.5000e-
004
0.0000 35.2527
Total 0.0166 0.0986 0.1354 6.2000e-
004
0.0481 4.7000e-
004
0.0485 0.0129 4.4000e-
004
0.0133 0.0000 57.8222 57.8222 2.5800e-
003
0.0000 57.8868
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0399 0.3125 0.2840 4.9000e-
004
0.0159 0.0159 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 40.4915 40.4915 7.9700e-
003
0.0000 40.6906
Total 0.0399 0.3125 0.2840 4.9000e-
004
0.0159 0.0159 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 40.4915 40.4915 7.9700e-
003
0.0000 40.6906
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 17 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.5500e-
003
0.0892 0.0250 2.3000e-
004
5.8900e-
003
1.9000e-
004
6.0800e-
003
1.7000e-
003
1.8000e-
004
1.8800e-
003
0.0000 22.5883 22.5883 1.8300e-
003
0.0000 22.6341
Worker 0.0141 9.4600e-
003
0.1104 3.9000e-
004
0.0422 2.8000e-
004
0.0425 0.0112 2.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0000 35.2338 35.2338 7.5000e-
004
0.0000 35.2527
Total 0.0166 0.0986 0.1354 6.2000e-
004
0.0481 4.7000e-
004
0.0485 0.0129 4.4000e-
004
0.0133 0.0000 57.8222 57.8222 2.5800e-
003
0.0000 57.8868
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2412 1.8985 1.8659 3.2500e-
003
0.0913 0.0913 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 269.9841 269.9841 0.0521 0.0000 271.2863
Total 0.2412 1.8985 1.8659 3.2500e-
003
0.0913 0.0913 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 269.9841 269.9841 0.0521 0.0000 271.2863
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 18 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0160 0.5619 0.1608 1.5100e-
003
0.0393 1.0700e-
003
0.0404 0.0113 1.0300e-
003
0.0124 0.0000 149.1041 149.1041 0.0118 0.0000 149.3991
Worker 0.0888 0.0572 0.6859 2.5000e-
003
0.2812 1.8200e-
003
0.2830 0.0747 1.6700e-
003
0.0763 0.0000 226.1961 226.1961 4.5700e-
003
0.0000 226.3102
Total 0.1048 0.6190 0.8466 4.0100e-
003
0.3204 2.8900e-
003
0.3233 0.0860 2.7000e-
003
0.0887 0.0000 375.3002 375.3002 0.0164 0.0000 375.7093
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2412 1.8985 1.8659 3.2500e-
003
0.0913 0.0913 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 269.9838 269.9838 0.0521 0.0000 271.2860
Total 0.2412 1.8985 1.8659 3.2500e-
003
0.0913 0.0913 0.0875 0.0875 0.0000 269.9838 269.9838 0.0521 0.0000 271.2860
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 19 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0160 0.5619 0.1608 1.5100e-
003
0.0393 1.0700e-
003
0.0404 0.0113 1.0300e-
003
0.0124 0.0000 149.1041 149.1041 0.0118 0.0000 149.3991
Worker 0.0888 0.0572 0.6859 2.5000e-
003
0.2812 1.8200e-
003
0.2830 0.0747 1.6700e-
003
0.0763 0.0000 226.1961 226.1961 4.5700e-
003
0.0000 226.3102
Total 0.1048 0.6190 0.8466 4.0100e-
003
0.3204 2.8900e-
003
0.3233 0.0860 2.7000e-
003
0.0887 0.0000 375.3002 375.3002 0.0164 0.0000 375.7093
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0626 0.4973 0.5188 9.1000e-
004
0.0224 0.0224 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 75.8113 75.8113 0.0143 0.0000 76.1697
Total 0.0626 0.4973 0.5188 9.1000e-
004
0.0224 0.0224 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 75.8113 75.8113 0.0143 0.0000 76.1697
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 20 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 3.4200e-
003
0.1185 0.0419 4.1000e-
004
0.0110 1.4000e-
004
0.0112 3.1800e-
003
1.4000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
0.0000 40.5991 40.5991 3.0700e-
003
0.0000 40.6759
Worker 0.0236 0.0146 0.1794 6.7000e-
004
0.0789 5.0000e-
004
0.0794 0.0210 4.6000e-
004
0.0214 0.0000 61.0696 61.0696 1.1600e-
003
0.0000 61.0986
Total 0.0271 0.1330 0.2212 1.0800e-
003
0.0900 6.4000e-
004
0.0906 0.0241 6.0000e-
004
0.0247 0.0000 101.6687 101.6687 4.2300e-
003
0.0000 101.7745
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0626 0.4973 0.5188 9.1000e-
004
0.0224 0.0224 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 75.8112 75.8112 0.0143 0.0000 76.1696
Total 0.0626 0.4973 0.5188 9.1000e-
004
0.0224 0.0224 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 75.8112 75.8112 0.0143 0.0000 76.1696
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 21 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 3.4200e-
003
0.1185 0.0419 4.1000e-
004
0.0110 1.4000e-
004
0.0112 3.1800e-
003
1.4000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
0.0000 40.5991 40.5991 3.0700e-
003
0.0000 40.6759
Worker 0.0236 0.0146 0.1794 6.7000e-
004
0.0789 5.0000e-
004
0.0794 0.0210 4.6000e-
004
0.0214 0.0000 61.0696 61.0696 1.1600e-
003
0.0000 61.0986
Total 0.0271 0.1330 0.2212 1.0800e-
003
0.0900 6.4000e-
004
0.0906 0.0241 6.0000e-
004
0.0247 0.0000 101.6687 101.6687 4.2300e-
003
0.0000 101.7745
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.4800e-
003
0.0732 0.0993 1.5000e-
004
3.6900e-
003
3.6900e-
003
3.4000e-
003
3.4000e-
003
0.0000 13.1859 13.1859 4.1800e-
003
0.0000 13.2904
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.4800e-
003
0.0732 0.0993 1.5000e-
004
3.6900e-
003
3.6900e-
003
3.4000e-
003
3.4000e-
003
0.0000 13.1859 13.1859 4.1800e-
003
0.0000 13.2904
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 22 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.2000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
3.1800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4100e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.0829 1.0829 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0834
Total 4.2000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
3.1800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4100e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.0829 1.0829 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0834
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.4800e-
003
0.0732 0.0993 1.5000e-
004
3.6900e-
003
3.6900e-
003
3.4000e-
003
3.4000e-
003
0.0000 13.1859 13.1859 4.1800e-
003
0.0000 13.2903
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.4800e-
003
0.0732 0.0993 1.5000e-
004
3.6900e-
003
3.6900e-
003
3.4000e-
003
3.4000e-
003
0.0000 13.1859 13.1859 4.1800e-
003
0.0000 13.2903
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 23 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.2000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
3.1800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4100e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.0829 1.0829 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0834
Total 4.2000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
3.1800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4100e-
003
3.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.0829 1.0829 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0834
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.6300e-
003
0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.1735
Total 0.6290 0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.1735
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 24 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.0900e-
003
6.7000e-
004
8.2700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.6400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.6600e-
003
9.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
9.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8155 2.8155 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8168
Total 1.0900e-
003
6.7000e-
004
8.2700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.6400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.6600e-
003
9.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
9.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8155 2.8155 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8168
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6273 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.6300e-
003
0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.1735
Total 0.6290 0.0111 0.0154 3.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1703 2.1703 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.1735
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 25 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.0900e-
003
6.7000e-
004
8.2700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.6400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.6600e-
003
9.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
9.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8155 2.8155 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8168
Total 1.0900e-
003
6.7000e-
004
8.2700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
3.6400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.6600e-
003
9.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
9.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8155 2.8155 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8168
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 26 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2587 0.9624 3.3577 0.0132 1.2533 9.1600e-
003
1.2624 0.3356 8.5000e-
003
0.3441 0.0000 1,213.332
6
1,213.332
6
0.0490 0.0000 1,214.556
7
Unmitigated 0.2587 0.9624 3.3577 0.0132 1.2533 9.1600e-
003
1.2624 0.3356 8.5000e-
003
0.3441 0.0000 1,213.332
6
1,213.332
6
0.0490 0.0000 1,214.556
7
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 799.37 799.37 799.37 2,731,569 2,731,569
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)251.21 251.21 251.21 342,360 342,360
Strip Mall 120.99 120.99 120.99 230,188 230,188
Total 1,171.57 1,171.57 1,171.57 3,304,116 3,304,116
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 27 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 439.1743 439.1743 0.0248 5.1400e-
003
441.3257
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 439.1743 439.1743 0.0248 5.1400e-
003
441.3257
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0159 0.1387 0.0796 8.7000e-
004
0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0000 157.1374 157.1374 3.0100e-
003
2.8800e-
003
158.0711
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0159 0.1387 0.0796 8.7000e-
004
0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0000 157.1374 157.1374 3.0100e-
003
2.8800e-
003
158.0711
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Mid Rise 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Strip Mall 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 28 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.93124e
+006
0.0104 0.0890 0.0379 5.7000e-
004
7.1900e-
003
7.1900e-
003
7.1900e-
003
7.1900e-
003
0.0000 103.0584 103.0584 1.9800e-
003
1.8900e-
003
103.6708
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
998382 5.3800e-
003
0.0489 0.0411 2.9000e-
004
3.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
0.0000 53.2775 53.2775 1.0200e-
003
9.8000e-
004
53.5941
Strip Mall 15020 8.0000e-
005
7.4000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8015 0.8015 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.8063
Total 0.0159 0.1387 0.0796 8.6000e-
004
0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0000 157.1374 157.1374 3.0200e-
003
2.8800e-
003
158.0711
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 29 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.93124e
+006
0.0104 0.0890 0.0379 5.7000e-
004
7.1900e-
003
7.1900e-
003
7.1900e-
003
7.1900e-
003
0.0000 103.0584 103.0584 1.9800e-
003
1.8900e-
003
103.6708
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
998382 5.3800e-
003
0.0489 0.0411 2.9000e-
004
3.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
3.7200e-
003
0.0000 53.2775 53.2775 1.0200e-
003
9.8000e-
004
53.5941
Strip Mall 15020 8.0000e-
005
7.4000e-
004
6.2000e-
004
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8015 0.8015 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.8063
Total 0.0159 0.1387 0.0796 8.6000e-
004
0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0000 157.1374 157.1374 3.0200e-
003
2.8800e-
003
158.0711
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 30 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
671826 156.3291 8.8400e-
003
1.8300e-
003
157.0949
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
989168 230.1724 0.0130 2.6900e-
003
231.2999
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
140448 32.6813 1.8500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
32.8413
Strip Mall 85914.4 19.9917 1.1300e-
003
2.3000e-
004
20.0896
Total 439.1743 0.0248 5.1300e-
003
441.3257
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 31 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
671826 156.3291 8.8400e-
003
1.8300e-
003
157.0949
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
989168 230.1724 0.0130 2.6900e-
003
231.2999
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
140448 32.6813 1.8500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
32.8413
Strip Mall 85914.4 19.9917 1.1300e-
003
2.3000e-
004
20.0896
Total 439.1743 0.0248 5.1300e-
003
441.3257
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 32 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.8078 0.0499 1.7614 2.8000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 37.3534 37.3534 3.4300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
37.6275
Unmitigated 0.8078 0.0499 1.7614 2.8000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 37.3534 37.3534 3.4300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
37.6275
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0627 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.6886 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 3.4900e-
003
0.0298 0.0127 1.9000e-
004
2.4100e-
003
2.4100e-
003
2.4100e-
003
2.4100e-
003
0.0000 34.4957 34.4957 6.6000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
34.7007
Landscaping 0.0530 0.0201 1.7488 9.0000e-
005
9.6700e-
003
9.6700e-
003
9.6700e-
003
9.6700e-
003
0.0000 2.8577 2.8577 2.7700e-
003
0.0000 2.9268
Total 0.8078 0.0499 1.7614 2.8000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 37.3534 37.3534 3.4300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
37.6275
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 33 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0627 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.6886 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 3.4900e-
003
0.0298 0.0127 1.9000e-
004
2.4100e-
003
2.4100e-
003
2.4100e-
003
2.4100e-
003
0.0000 34.4957 34.4957 6.6000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
34.7007
Landscaping 0.0530 0.0201 1.7488 9.0000e-
005
9.6700e-
003
9.6700e-
003
9.6700e-
003
9.6700e-
003
0.0000 2.8577 2.8577 2.7700e-
003
0.0000 2.9268
Total 0.8078 0.0499 1.7614 2.8000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 37.3534 37.3534 3.4300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
37.6275
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 34 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 61.6492 0.4183 0.0105 75.2265
Unmitigated 61.6492 0.4183 0.0105 75.2265
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
11.011 /
6.94174
54.8015 0.3617 9.0700e-
003
66.5473
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.1686 /
0.0745918
4.1043 0.0383 9.4000e-
004
5.3425
Strip Mall 0.556285 /
0.340949
2.7434 0.0183 4.6000e-
004
3.3367
Total 61.6492 0.4183 0.0105 75.2265
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 35 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
11.011 /
6.94174
54.8015 0.3617 9.0700e-
003
66.5473
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.1686 /
0.0745918
4.1043 0.0383 9.4000e-
004
5.3425
Strip Mall 0.556285 /
0.340949
2.7434 0.0183 4.6000e-
004
3.3367
Total 61.6492 0.4183 0.0105 75.2265
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 36 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 26.6832 1.5769 0.0000 66.1064
Unmitigated 26.6832 1.5769 0.0000 66.1064
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
77.74 15.7805 0.9326 0.0000 39.0956
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
45.82 9.3011 0.5497 0.0000 23.0430
Strip Mall 7.89 1.6016 0.0947 0.0000 3.9679
Total 26.6832 1.5769 0.0000 66.1064
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 37 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
77.74 15.7805 0.9326 0.0000 39.0956
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
45.82 9.3011 0.5497 0.0000 23.0430
Strip Mall 7.89 1.6016 0.0947 0.0000 3.9679
Total 26.6832 1.5769 0.0000 66.1064
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 38 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:56 PMPage 39 of 39
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 422.00 Space 1.23 168,800.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)3.85 1000sqft 0.09 3,850.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 169.00 Dwelling Unit 1.23 176,178.00 483
Strip Mall 7.51 1000sqft 0.17 7,510.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
8
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
513 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project
Orange County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 1 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment about CO2 intensity factor.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment about residential land use size. 93,117-SF residential space (Block A) + 8,075-SF leasing/amenity space (Block A) + 74,986-
SF residential space (Block B) = 176,178-SF total residential land use space modeled as "Apartments Mid Rise."
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment about construction schedule.
Grading -
Vehicle Trips - See SWAPE comment about trip rates.
Woodstoves - Consistent with Addendum's model.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about construction-related mitigation measures.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
Area Mitigation - Consistent with Addendum's model.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
Waste Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 2 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 372.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 34.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 5.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 8.45 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 169,000.00 176,178.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.80 1.23
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.45 1.23
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 702.44 513
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 4.73
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 65.25
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 16.11
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.73
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 65.25
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 16.11
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.73
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.25
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 16.11
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 8.45 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 8.45 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 3 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.8842 20.9608 21.7677 0.0577 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,651.962
0
5,651.962
0
0.7692 0.0000 5,666.859
0
2022 2.6479 19.2540 21.1170 0.0567 2.5087 0.7243 3.2330 0.6722 0.6938 1.3660 0.0000 5,562.820
2
5,562.820
2
0.5800 0.0000 5,577.319
8
2023 74.1199 17.1933 20.5231 0.0556 2.5087 0.6312 3.1399 0.6722 0.6044 1.2766 0.0000 5,447.514
2
5,447.514
2
0.5607 0.0000 5,461.530
6
Maximum 74.1199 20.9608 21.7677 0.0577 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,651.962
0
5,651.962
0
0.7692 0.0000 5,666.859
0
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.8842 20.9608 21.7677 0.0577 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,651.962
0
5,651.962
0
0.7692 0.0000 5,666.859
0
2022 2.6479 19.2540 21.1170 0.0567 2.5087 0.7243 3.2330 0.6722 0.6938 1.3660 0.0000 5,562.820
2
5,562.820
2
0.5800 0.0000 5,577.319
8
2023 74.1199 17.1933 20.5231 0.0556 2.5087 0.6312 3.1399 0.6722 0.6044 1.2766 0.0000 5,447.514
2
5,447.514
2
0.5607 0.0000 5,461.530
6
Maximum 74.1199 20.9608 21.7677 0.0577 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,651.962
0
5,651.962
0
0.7692 0.0000 5,666.859
0
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 4 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 5 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Energy 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Mobile 1.4943 5.0753 18.9920 0.0747 7.0094 0.0503 7.0597 1.8744 0.0467 1.9211 7,593.568
7
7,593.568
7
0.2979 7,601.016
8
Total 6.4012 8.3792 34.4322 0.0954 7.0094 0.3804 7.3898 1.8744 0.3768 2.2512 0.0000 11,609.88
82
11,609.88
82
0.3988 0.0732 11,641.66
33
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Energy 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Mobile 1.4943 5.0753 18.9920 0.0747 7.0094 0.0503 7.0597 1.8744 0.0467 1.9211 7,593.568
7
7,593.568
7
0.2979 7,601.016
8
Total 6.4012 8.3792 34.4322 0.0954 7.0094 0.3804 7.3898 1.8744 0.3768 2.2512 0.0000 11,609.88
82
11,609.88
82
0.3988 0.0732 11,641.66
33
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 6 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/18/2021 5 34
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/19/2021 10/25/2021 5 5
3 Grading Grading 10/26/2021 11/8/2021 5 10
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/9/2021 4/12/2023 5 372
5 Paving Paving 4/13/2023 5/5/2023 5 17
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/6/2023 5/30/2023 5 17
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 356,760; Residential Outdoor: 118,920; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,040; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,680; Striped Parking
Area: 10,128 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 5
Acres of Paving: 1.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 7 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 8 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 197.00 48.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 39.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 9 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e-
003
136.8585
Total 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e-
003
136.8585
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 0.0000 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 0.0000 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 10 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e-
003
136.8585
Total 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e-
003
136.8585
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 11 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0289 0.0175 0.2430 8.4000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 84.1755 84.1755 1.8000e-
003
84.2206
Total 0.0289 0.0175 0.2430 8.4000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 84.1755 84.1755 1.8000e-
003
84.2206
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 12 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0289 0.0175 0.2430 8.4000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 84.1755 84.1755 1.8000e-
003
84.2206
Total 0.0289 0.0175 0.2430 8.4000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 84.1755 84.1755 1.8000e-
003
84.2206
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 13 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0361 0.0218 0.3037 1.0600e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 105.2194 105.2194 2.2500e-
003
105.2758
Total 0.0361 0.0218 0.3037 1.0600e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 105.2194 105.2194 2.2500e-
003
105.2758
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 14 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0361 0.0218 0.3037 1.0600e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 105.2194 105.2194 2.2500e-
003
105.2758
Total 0.0361 0.0218 0.3037 1.0600e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 105.2194 105.2194 2.2500e-
003
105.2758
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 15 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1281 4.5031 1.2213 0.0118 0.3067 9.3500e-
003
0.3160 0.0883 8.9500e-
003
0.0972 1,290.204
0
1,290.204
0
0.1012 1,292.733
3
Worker 0.7111 0.4302 5.9835 0.0208 2.2020 0.0143 2.2163 0.5840 0.0131 0.5971 2,072.822
5
2,072.822
5
0.0444 2,073.932
2
Total 0.8391 4.9333 7.2047 0.0326 2.5087 0.0236 2.5323 0.6722 0.0221 0.6943 3,363.026
5
3,363.026
5
0.1456 3,366.665
4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 16 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1281 4.5031 1.2213 0.0118 0.3067 9.3500e-
003
0.3160 0.0883 8.9500e-
003
0.0972 1,290.204
0
1,290.204
0
0.1012 1,292.733
3
Worker 0.7111 0.4302 5.9835 0.0208 2.2020 0.0143 2.2163 0.5840 0.0131 0.5971 2,072.822
5
2,072.822
5
0.0444 2,073.932
2
Total 0.8391 4.9333 7.2047 0.0326 2.5087 0.0236 2.5323 0.6722 0.0221 0.6943 3,363.026
5
3,363.026
5
0.1456 3,366.665
4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 17 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1204 4.2602 1.1792 0.0117 0.3067 8.1400e-
003
0.3148 0.0883 7.7800e-
003
0.0960 1,277.532
5
1,277.532
5
0.0980 1,279.982
6
Worker 0.6720 0.3898 5.5845 0.0200 2.2020 0.0140 2.2160 0.5840 0.0129 0.5969 1,996.006
4
1,996.006
4
0.0403 1,997.014
3
Total 0.7924 4.6500 6.7637 0.0317 2.5087 0.0221 2.5308 0.6722 0.0207 0.6929 3,273.539
0
3,273.539
0
0.1383 3,276.996
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 18 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1204 4.2602 1.1792 0.0117 0.3067 8.1400e-
003
0.3148 0.0883 7.7800e-
003
0.0960 1,277.532
5
1,277.532
5
0.0980 1,279.982
6
Worker 0.6720 0.3898 5.5845 0.0200 2.2020 0.0140 2.2160 0.5840 0.0129 0.5969 1,996.006
4
1,996.006
4
0.0403 1,997.014
3
Total 0.7924 4.6500 6.7637 0.0317 2.5087 0.0221 2.5308 0.6722 0.0207 0.6929 3,273.539
0
3,273.539
0
0.1383 3,276.996
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 19 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0917 3.2155 1.1006 0.0113 0.3067 3.8700e-
003
0.3105 0.0883 3.7000e-
003
0.0920 1,238.719
4
1,238.719
4
0.0911 1,240.997
1
Worker 0.6364 0.3539 5.2080 0.0192 2.2020 0.0137 2.2157 0.5840 0.0127 0.5966 1,919.271
5
1,919.271
5
0.0366 1,920.185
6
Total 0.7280 3.5693 6.3086 0.0306 2.5087 0.0176 2.5263 0.6722 0.0164 0.6886 3,157.990
9
3,157.990
9
0.1277 3,161.182
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 20 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0917 3.2155 1.1006 0.0113 0.3067 3.8700e-
003
0.3105 0.0883 3.7000e-
003
0.0920 1,238.719
4
1,238.719
4
0.0911 1,240.997
1
Worker 0.6364 0.3539 5.2080 0.0192 2.2020 0.0137 2.2157 0.5840 0.0127 0.5966 1,919.271
5
1,919.271
5
0.0366 1,920.185
6
Total 0.7280 3.5693 6.3086 0.0306 2.5087 0.0176 2.5263 0.6722 0.0164 0.6886 3,157.990
9
3,157.990
9
0.1277 3,161.182
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 21 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e-
003
146.2070
Total 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e-
003
146.2070
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 22 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e-
003
146.2070
Total 0.0485 0.0270 0.3966 1.4600e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 146.1374 146.1374 2.7800e-
003
146.2070
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 73.8023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 73.9940 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 23 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1260 0.0701 1.0310 3.8100e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 379.9573 379.9573 7.2400e-
003
380.1383
Total 0.1260 0.0701 1.0310 3.8100e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 379.9573 379.9573 7.2400e-
003
380.1383
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 73.8023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 73.9940 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 24 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1260 0.0701 1.0310 3.8100e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 379.9573 379.9573 7.2400e-
003
380.1383
Total 0.1260 0.0701 1.0310 3.8100e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 379.9573 379.9573 7.2400e-
003
380.1383
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 25 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.4943 5.0753 18.9920 0.0747 7.0094 0.0503 7.0597 1.8744 0.0467 1.9211 7,593.568
7
7,593.568
7
0.2979 7,601.016
8
Unmitigated 1.4943 5.0753 18.9920 0.0747 7.0094 0.0503 7.0597 1.8744 0.0467 1.9211 7,593.568
7
7,593.568
7
0.2979 7,601.016
8
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 799.37 799.37 799.37 2,731,569 2,731,569
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)251.21 251.21 251.21 342,360 342,360
Strip Mall 120.99 120.99 120.99 230,188 230,188
Total 1,171.57 1,171.57 1,171.57 3,304,116 3,304,116
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 26 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Mid Rise 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Strip Mall 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 27 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
5291.07 0.0571 0.4876 0.2075 3.1100e-
003
0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 622.4789 622.4789 0.0119 0.0114 626.1780
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
2735.29 0.0295 0.2682 0.2253 1.6100e-
003
0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 321.7992 321.7992 6.1700e-
003
5.9000e-
003
323.7115
Strip Mall 41.1507 4.4000e-
004
4.0300e-
003
3.3900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
4.8413 4.8413 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.8700
Total 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7400e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 28 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
5.29107 0.0571 0.4876 0.2075 3.1100e-
003
0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 622.4789 622.4789 0.0119 0.0114 626.1780
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
2.73529 0.0295 0.2682 0.2253 1.6100e-
003
0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 321.7992 321.7992 6.1700e-
003
5.9000e-
003
323.7115
Strip Mall 0.0411507 4.4000e-
004
4.0300e-
003
3.3900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
4.8413 4.8413 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.8700
Total 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7400e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 29 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Unmitigated 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
3.7730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.2789 2.3829 1.0140 0.0152 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.0000 3,042.000
0
3,042.000
0
0.0583 0.0558 3,060.077
1
Landscaping 0.4242 0.1612 13.9901 7.4000e-
004
0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 25.2002 25.2002 0.0244 25.8099
Total 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 30 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
3.7730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.2789 2.3829 1.0140 0.0152 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.0000 3,042.000
0
3,042.000
0
0.0583 0.0558 3,060.077
1
Landscaping 0.4242 0.1612 13.9901 7.4000e-
004
0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 25.2002 25.2002 0.0244 25.8099
Total 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 31 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:57 PMPage 32 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 422.00 Space 1.23 168,800.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)3.85 1000sqft 0.09 3,850.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 169.00 Dwelling Unit 1.23 176,178.00 483
Strip Mall 7.51 1000sqft 0.17 7,510.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
8
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
513 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project
Orange County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 1 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment about CO2 intensity factor.
Land Use - See SWAPE comment about residential land use size. 93,117-SF residential space (Block A) + 8,075-SF leasing/amenity space (Block A) + 74,986-
SF residential space (Block B) = 176,178-SF total residential land use space modeled as "Apartments Mid Rise."
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment about construction schedule.
Grading -
Vehicle Trips - See SWAPE comment about trip rates.
Woodstoves - Consistent with Addendum's model.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about construction-related mitigation measures.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
Area Mitigation - Consistent with Addendum's model.
Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
Waste Mitigation - See SWAPE comment about operational mitigation measures.
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 2 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 372.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 34.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 17.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 5.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 8.45 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 169,000.00 176,178.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.80 1.23
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.45 1.23
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 702.44 513
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 4.73
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 65.25
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 16.11
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.73
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 65.25
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 16.11
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.73
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.25
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 16.11
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 8.45 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 8.45 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 3 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.9845 20.9927 21.4240 0.0562 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,509.232
1
5,509.232
1
0.7692 0.0000 5,524.193
3
2022 2.7447 19.2795 20.7903 0.0554 2.5087 0.7246 3.2333 0.6722 0.6941 1.3663 0.0000 5,424.498
0
5,424.498
0
0.5824 0.0000 5,439.057
7
2023 74.1374 17.2097 20.1924 0.0543 2.5087 0.6315 3.1401 0.6722 0.6046 1.2768 0.0000 5,314.859
7
5,314.859
7
0.5624 0.0000 5,328.919
5
Maximum 74.1374 20.9927 21.4240 0.0562 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,509.232
1
5,509.232
1
0.7692 0.0000 5,524.193
3
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.9845 20.9927 21.4240 0.0562 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,509.232
1
5,509.232
1
0.7692 0.0000 5,524.193
3
2022 2.7447 19.2795 20.7903 0.0554 2.5087 0.7246 3.2333 0.6722 0.6941 1.3663 0.0000 5,424.498
0
5,424.498
0
0.5824 0.0000 5,439.057
7
2023 74.1374 17.2097 20.1924 0.0543 2.5087 0.6315 3.1401 0.6722 0.6046 1.2768 0.0000 5,314.859
7
5,314.859
7
0.5624 0.0000 5,328.919
5
Maximum 74.1374 20.9927 21.4240 0.0562 6.6641 1.0418 7.5806 3.3971 0.9723 4.2403 0.0000 5,509.232
1
5,509.232
1
0.7692 0.0000 5,524.193
3
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 4 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 5 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Energy 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Mobile 1.4667 5.2077 18.2140 0.0714 7.0094 0.0505 7.0599 1.8744 0.0469 1.9213 7,259.129
2
7,259.129
2
0.2975 7,266.567
1
Total 6.3736 8.5116 33.6542 0.0921 7.0094 0.3806 7.3900 1.8744 0.3770 2.2514 0.0000 11,275.44
87
11,275.44
87
0.3984 0.0732 11,307.21
37
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Energy 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Mobile 1.4667 5.2077 18.2140 0.0714 7.0094 0.0505 7.0599 1.8744 0.0469 1.9213 7,259.129
2
7,259.129
2
0.2975 7,266.567
1
Total 6.3736 8.5116 33.6542 0.0921 7.0094 0.3806 7.3900 1.8744 0.3770 2.2514 0.0000 11,275.44
87
11,275.44
87
0.3984 0.0732 11,307.21
37
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 6 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/18/2021 5 34
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/19/2021 10/25/2021 5 5
3 Grading Grading 10/26/2021 11/8/2021 5 10
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/9/2021 4/12/2023 5 372
5 Paving Paving 4/13/2023 5/5/2023 5 17
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/6/2023 5/30/2023 5 17
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 356,760; Residential Outdoor: 118,920; Non-Residential Indoor: 17,040; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,680; Striped Parking
Area: 10,128 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 5
Acres of Paving: 1.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 7 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 8 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 197.00 48.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 39.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 9 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0531 0.0312 0.3644 1.3000e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 129.4582 129.4582 2.7700e-
003
129.5275
Total 0.0531 0.0312 0.3644 1.3000e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 129.4582 129.4582 2.7700e-
003
129.5275
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 0.0000 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Total 1.9930 19.6966 14.4925 0.0241 1.0409 1.0409 0.9715 0.9715 0.0000 2,322.717
1
2,322.717
1
0.5940 2,337.565
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 10 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0531 0.0312 0.3644 1.3000e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 129.4582 129.4582 2.7700e-
003
129.5275
Total 0.0531 0.0312 0.3644 1.3000e-
003
0.1453 9.4000e-
004
0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e-
004
0.0394 129.4582 129.4582 2.7700e-
003
129.5275
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 11 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0327 0.0192 0.2242 8.0000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 79.6666 79.6666 1.7100e-
003
79.7092
Total 0.0327 0.0192 0.2242 8.0000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 79.6666 79.6666 1.7100e-
003
79.7092
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 12 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0327 0.0192 0.2242 8.0000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 79.6666 79.6666 1.7100e-
003
79.7092
Total 0.0327 0.0192 0.2242 8.0000e-
004
0.0894 5.8000e-
004
0.0900 0.0237 5.3000e-
004
0.0243 79.6666 79.6666 1.7100e-
003
79.7092
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 13 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0409 0.0240 0.2803 1.0000e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 99.5832 99.5832 2.1300e-
003
99.6365
Total 0.0409 0.0240 0.2803 1.0000e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 99.5832 99.5832 2.1300e-
003
99.6365
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 14 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0409 0.0240 0.2803 1.0000e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 99.5832 99.5832 2.1300e-
003
99.6365
Total 0.0409 0.0240 0.2803 1.0000e-
003
0.1118 7.2000e-
004
0.1125 0.0296 6.7000e-
004
0.0303 99.5832 99.5832 2.1300e-
003
99.6365
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 15 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1344 4.4925 1.3398 0.0116 0.3067 9.7100e-
003
0.3164 0.0883 9.2800e-
003
0.0975 1,258.507
2
1,258.507
2
0.1061 1,261.160
1
Worker 0.8050 0.4728 5.5213 0.0197 2.2020 0.0143 2.2163 0.5840 0.0131 0.5971 1,961.789
4
1,961.789
4
0.0420 1,962.839
6
Total 0.9395 4.9652 6.8611 0.0312 2.5087 0.0240 2.5326 0.6722 0.0224 0.6946 3,220.296
6
3,220.296
6
0.1481 3,223.999
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 16 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1344 4.4925 1.3398 0.0116 0.3067 9.7100e-
003
0.3164 0.0883 9.2800e-
003
0.0975 1,258.507
2
1,258.507
2
0.1061 1,261.160
1
Worker 0.8050 0.4728 5.5213 0.0197 2.2020 0.0143 2.2163 0.5840 0.0131 0.5971 1,961.789
4
1,961.789
4
0.0420 1,962.839
6
Total 0.9395 4.9652 6.8611 0.0312 2.5087 0.0240 2.5326 0.6722 0.0224 0.6946 3,220.296
6
3,220.296
6
0.1481 3,223.999
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 17 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1264 4.2473 1.2918 0.0114 0.3067 8.4500e-
003
0.3151 0.0883 8.0800e-
003
0.0963 1,246.028
6
1,246.028
6
0.1026 1,248.593
5
Worker 0.7628 0.4283 5.1452 0.0189 2.2020 0.0140 2.2160 0.5840 0.0129 0.5969 1,889.188
2
1,889.188
2
0.0381 1,890.141
3
Total 0.8892 4.6755 6.4371 0.0304 2.5087 0.0224 2.5311 0.6722 0.0210 0.6932 3,135.216
8
3,135.216
8
0.1407 3,138.734
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 18 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1264 4.2473 1.2918 0.0114 0.3067 8.4500e-
003
0.3151 0.0883 8.0800e-
003
0.0963 1,246.028
6
1,246.028
6
0.1026 1,248.593
5
Worker 0.7628 0.4283 5.1452 0.0189 2.2020 0.0140 2.2160 0.5840 0.0129 0.5969 1,889.188
2
1,889.188
2
0.0381 1,890.141
3
Total 0.8892 4.6755 6.4371 0.0304 2.5087 0.0224 2.5311 0.6722 0.0210 0.6932 3,135.216
8
3,135.216
8
0.1407 3,138.734
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 19 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0963 3.1970 1.1871 0.0111 0.3067 4.1100e-
003
0.3108 0.0883 3.9300e-
003
0.0922 1,208.684
4
1,208.684
4
0.0949 1,211.056
0
Worker 0.7245 0.3887 4.7909 0.0182 2.2020 0.0137 2.2157 0.5840 0.0127 0.5966 1,816.652
0
1,816.652
0
0.0346 1,817.515
7
Total 0.8208 3.5857 5.9780 0.0293 2.5087 0.0179 2.5265 0.6722 0.0166 0.6888 3,025.336
4
3,025.336
4
0.1294 3,028.571
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Total 1.7136 13.6239 14.2145 0.0250 0.6136 0.6136 0.5880 0.5880 0.0000 2,289.523
3
2,289.523
3
0.4330 2,300.347
9
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 20 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0963 3.1970 1.1871 0.0111 0.3067 4.1100e-
003
0.3108 0.0883 3.9300e-
003
0.0922 1,208.684
4
1,208.684
4
0.0949 1,211.056
0
Worker 0.7245 0.3887 4.7909 0.0182 2.2020 0.0137 2.2157 0.5840 0.0127 0.5966 1,816.652
0
1,816.652
0
0.0346 1,817.515
7
Total 0.8208 3.5857 5.9780 0.0293 2.5087 0.0179 2.5265 0.6722 0.0166 0.6888 3,025.336
4
3,025.336
4
0.1294 3,028.571
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 21 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e-
003
138.3895
Total 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e-
003
138.3895
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.8802 8.6098 11.6840 0.0179 0.4338 0.4338 0.4003 0.4003 0.0000 1,709.992
6
1,709.992
6
0.5420 1,723.541
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 22 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e-
003
138.3895
Total 0.0552 0.0296 0.3648 1.3900e-
003
0.1677 1.0500e-
003
0.1687 0.0445 9.6000e-
004
0.0454 138.3238 138.3238 2.6300e-
003
138.3895
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 73.8023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 73.9940 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 23 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1434 0.0770 0.9485 3.6000e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 359.6418 359.6418 6.8400e-
003
359.8127
Total 0.1434 0.0770 0.9485 3.6000e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 359.6418 359.6418 6.8400e-
003
359.8127
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 73.8023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 73.9940 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 24 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1434 0.0770 0.9485 3.6000e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 359.6418 359.6418 6.8400e-
003
359.8127
Total 0.1434 0.0770 0.9485 3.6000e-
003
0.4359 2.7200e-
003
0.4387 0.1156 2.5000e-
003
0.1181 359.6418 359.6418 6.8400e-
003
359.8127
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 25 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.4667 5.2077 18.2140 0.0714 7.0094 0.0505 7.0599 1.8744 0.0469 1.9213 7,259.129
2
7,259.129
2
0.2975 7,266.567
1
Unmitigated 1.4667 5.2077 18.2140 0.0714 7.0094 0.0505 7.0599 1.8744 0.0469 1.9213 7,259.129
2
7,259.129
2
0.2975 7,266.567
1
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 799.37 799.37 799.37 2,731,569 2,731,569
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)251.21 251.21 251.21 342,360 342,360
Strip Mall 120.99 120.99 120.99 230,188 230,188
Total 1,171.57 1,171.57 1,171.57 3,304,116 3,304,116
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 26 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7500e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Mid Rise 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)
0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Strip Mall 0.563406 0.043070 0.209298 0.109958 0.015015 0.005784 0.026182 0.017546 0.001775 0.001524 0.004941 0.000598 0.000904
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 27 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
5291.07 0.0571 0.4876 0.2075 3.1100e-
003
0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 622.4789 622.4789 0.0119 0.0114 626.1780
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
2735.29 0.0295 0.2682 0.2253 1.6100e-
003
0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 321.7992 321.7992 6.1700e-
003
5.9000e-
003
323.7115
Strip Mall 41.1507 4.4000e-
004
4.0300e-
003
3.3900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
4.8413 4.8413 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.8700
Total 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7400e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 28 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
5.29107 0.0571 0.4876 0.2075 3.1100e-
003
0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 0.0394 622.4789 622.4789 0.0119 0.0114 626.1780
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
2.73529 0.0295 0.2682 0.2253 1.6100e-
003
0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 321.7992 321.7992 6.1700e-
003
5.9000e-
003
323.7115
Strip Mall 0.0411507 4.4000e-
004
4.0300e-
003
3.3900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
4.8413 4.8413 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
4.8700
Total 0.0870 0.7598 0.4361 4.7400e-
003
0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 0.0601 949.1193 949.1193 0.0182 0.0174 954.7595
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 29 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Unmitigated 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
3.7730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.2789 2.3829 1.0140 0.0152 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.0000 3,042.000
0
3,042.000
0
0.0583 0.0558 3,060.077
1
Landscaping 0.4242 0.1612 13.9901 7.4000e-
004
0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 25.2002 25.2002 0.0244 25.8099
Total 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 30 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
3.7730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.2789 2.3829 1.0140 0.0152 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.1927 0.0000 3,042.000
0
3,042.000
0
0.0583 0.0558 3,060.077
1
Landscaping 0.4242 0.1612 13.9901 7.4000e-
004
0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 0.0774 25.2002 25.2002 0.0244 25.8099
Total 4.8199 2.5441 15.0041 0.0160 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.2700 0.0000 3,067.200
2
3,067.200
2
0.0827 0.0558 3,085.887
0
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 31 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/8/2020 2:58 PMPage 32 of 32
4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project - Orange County, Winter
Start date and time 10/08/20 14:58:45
AERSCREEN 16216
4th and Mortimer Construction
4th and Mortimer Construction
----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION -----------------
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** --------------- ----------------
Emission Rate: 0.156E-02 g/s 0.123E-01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 157.00 meters 515.09 feet
Area Source Width: 70.00 meters 229.66 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 332725
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2020.10.08_4thandMortimer_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 10/08/20 14:59:34
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** 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 ***
*****************************************************
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 ***
********************************************
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
******** 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
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** 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 ***
*****************************************************
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 ***
********************************************
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
******** 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 ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 10/08/20 14:59:45
REFINE started 10/08/20 14:59:45
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 10/08/20 14:59:46
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 10/08/20 14:59:48
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
0.30467E+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
0.33827E+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
0.36935E+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
0.39144E+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
* 0.39459E+01 79.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27307E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18815E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14398E+01 150.00 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
0.11524E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95248E+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
0.80642E+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
0.69567E+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
0.60877E+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
0.53971E+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
0.48264E+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
0.43557E+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
0.39621E+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
0.36244E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33335E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30808E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28604E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26665E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24930E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23383E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21997E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20750E+00 600.00 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
0.19623E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18599E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17661E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16803E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16016E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15289E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14615E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13992E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13413E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12877E+00 850.00 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
0.12376E+00 875.00 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
0.11908E+00 900.00 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
0.11470E+00 925.00 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
0.11060E+00 950.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10674E+00 975.00 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
0.10311E+00 1000.00 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
0.99699E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96478E-01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93435E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90557E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87831E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85243E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82786E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80444E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78210E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76082E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74052E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72105E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70528E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68742E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67033E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65397E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63828E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62324E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60879E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59492E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58159E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56877E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55642E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54454E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53309E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52204E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51139E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50111E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49118E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48159E-01 1750.00 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
0.47232E-01 1775.00 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
0.46335E-01 1800.00 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
0.45467E-01 1825.00 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
0.44627E-01 1850.00 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
0.43814E-01 1875.00 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
0.43026E-01 1900.00 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
0.42262E-01 1924.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41521E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40803E-01 1975.00 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
0.40106E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39429E-01 2025.00 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
0.38772E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38133E-01 2075.00 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
0.37513E-01 2100.00 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
0.36909E-01 2125.00 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
0.36323E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35752E-01 2175.00 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
0.35197E-01 2200.00 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
0.34656E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34130E-01 2250.00 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
0.33617E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33118E-01 2300.00 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
0.32631E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32157E-01 2350.00 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
0.31694E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31242E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30802E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30373E-01 2449.99 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
0.29953E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29544E-01 2500.00 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
0.29144E-01 2525.00 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
0.28754E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28372E-01 2575.00 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
0.27999E-01 2600.00 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
0.27635E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27278E-01 2650.00 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
0.26930E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26589E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26256E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25929E-01 2750.00 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
0.25610E-01 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25298E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24991E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24692E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24399E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24111E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23829E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23553E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23283E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23018E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22758E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22503E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22253E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22007E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21767E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21531E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21299E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21071E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20848E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20629E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20414E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20203E-01 3300.00 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
0.19995E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19791E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19591E-01 3375.00 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
0.19394E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19200E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19010E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18823E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18639E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18459E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18281E-01 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18106E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17934E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17765E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17599E-01 3650.00 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
0.17436E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17275E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17116E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16960E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16807E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16655E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16507E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16360E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16216E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16074E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15934E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15796E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15660E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15527E-01 4000.00 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
0.15395E-01 4025.00 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
0.15265E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15137E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15011E-01 4100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14887E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14764E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14643E-01 4175.00 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
0.14524E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14407E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14291E-01 4250.00 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
0.14177E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14064E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13953E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13843E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13735E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13628E-01 4400.00 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
0.13523E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13419E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13317E-01 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13216E-01 4500.00 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
0.13116E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13018E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12920E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12824E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12730E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12636E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12544E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12453E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12363E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12274E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12186E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12099E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12013E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11929E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11845E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11763E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11681E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11600E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11521E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11442E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Start date and time 10/08/20 14:59:50
AERSCREEN 16216
4th and Mortimer Operation
4th and Mortimer Operation
----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION -----------------
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** --------------- ----------------
Emission Rate: 0.926E-03 g/s 0.735E-02 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 157.00 meters 515.09 feet
Area Source Width: 70.00 meters 229.66 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 332725
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2020.10.08_4thandMortimer_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 10/08/20 15:00:33
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** 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 ***
*****************************************************
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 ***
********************************************
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
******** 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
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** 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 ***
*****************************************************
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 ***
********************************************
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
******** 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 ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 10/08/20 15:00:43
REFINE started 10/08/20 15:00:43
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 10/08/20 15:00:45
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 10/08/20 15:00:47
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
0.18149E+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
0.20150E+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
0.22002E+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
0.23318E+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
* 0.23505E+01 79.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16266E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11208E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85766E+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
0.68647E+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
0.56738E+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
0.48038E+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
0.41440E+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
0.36264E+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
0.32150E+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
0.28750E+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
0.25946E+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
0.23602E+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
0.21590E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19858E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18352E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17039E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15884E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14851E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13929E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13104E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12361E+00 600.00 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
0.11689E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11079E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10520E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10009E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95407E-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
0.91074E-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
0.87061E-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
0.83348E-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
0.79903E-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
0.76704E-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
0.73720E-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
0.70932E-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
0.68325E-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
0.65880E-01 950.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63585E-01 975.00 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
0.61424E-01 1000.00 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
0.59389E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57471E-01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55659E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53944E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52320E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50779E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49315E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47920E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46589E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45321E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44112E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42952E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42013E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40949E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39931E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38956E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38022E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37126E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36265E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35439E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34645E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33881E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33145E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32438E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31755E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31098E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30463E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29851E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29259E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28688E-01 1750.00 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
0.28136E-01 1775.00 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
0.27601E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27084E-01 1825.00 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
0.26584E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26100E-01 1875.00 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
0.25630E-01 1900.00 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
0.25175E-01 1924.99 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
0.24734E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24306E-01 1975.00 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
0.23891E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23488E-01 2025.00 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
0.23096E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22715E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22346E-01 2100.00 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
0.21986E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21637E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21297E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20966E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20644E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20331E-01 2250.00 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
0.20025E-01 2275.00 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
0.19728E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19438E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19155E-01 2350.00 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
0.18880E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18611E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18349E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18093E-01 2449.99 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
0.17843E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17599E-01 2500.00 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
0.17361E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17128E-01 2550.00 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
0.16901E-01 2575.00 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
0.16679E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16462E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16249E-01 2650.00 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
0.16042E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15839E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15640E-01 2725.00 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
0.15446E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15256E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15069E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14887E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14709E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14534E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14363E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14195E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14031E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13869E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13711E-01 2999.99 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
0.13556E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13405E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13256E-01 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13109E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12966E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12826E-01 3150.00 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
0.12687E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12552E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12419E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12288E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12160E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12034E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11911E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11789E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11670E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11553E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11437E-01 3425.00 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
0.11324E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11213E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11103E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10996E-01 3525.00 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
0.10890E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10786E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10683E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10583E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10484E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10386E-01 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10290E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10196E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10103E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10011E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99215E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98329E-02 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.97456E-02 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96597E-02 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95751E-02 3900.00 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
0.94917E-02 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.94096E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93287E-02 3975.00 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
0.92491E-02 4000.00 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
0.91705E-02 4025.00 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
0.90932E-02 4050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90169E-02 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89418E-02 4100.00 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
0.88677E-02 4125.00 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
0.87947E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87228E-02 4175.00 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
0.86518E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85818E-02 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85128E-02 4250.00 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
0.84448E-02 4275.00 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
0.83777E-02 4300.00 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
0.83115E-02 4325.00 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
0.82463E-02 4350.00 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
0.81819E-02 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81183E-02 4400.00 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
0.80556E-02 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79938E-02 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79328E-02 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78725E-02 4500.00 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
0.78131E-02 4525.00 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
0.77544E-02 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76965E-02 4575.00 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
0.76393E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75829E-02 4625.00 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
0.75272E-02 4650.00 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
0.74722E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74179E-02 4700.00 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
0.73642E-02 4725.00 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
0.73113E-02 4750.00 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
0.72590E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72073E-02 4800.00 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
0.71563E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71059E-02 4850.00 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
0.70561E-02 4875.00 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
0.70069E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69582E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69102E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68628E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68159E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. 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) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• 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 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, 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 industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• 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.
3
• 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 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• 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
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
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 taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
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).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
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.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
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 Water 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 Characterization and Cleanup 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.
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 examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
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: prosenfeld@swape.com
October 2015 1 Rosenfeld CV
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 VOC filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience:
Dr. Rosenfeld is the Co-Founder and Principal Environmental Chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise
(SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological
restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling, oil spills, boilers,
incinerators and other industrial and agricultural sources relating to nuisance and personal injury. His project
experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing petroleum, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile
organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, MtBE, fuel
oxygenates and odor. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated greenhouse gas emissions using various modeling programs
recommended by California Air Quality Management Districts.
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
Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
October 2015 2 Rosenfeld CV
Publications:
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.
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. (Mel) (2007). Anatomy of an Odor Wheel. Water Science and Technology.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). The use of an odor wheel classification for
evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities. Water Science And Technology.
October 2015 3 Rosenfeld CV
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.
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.
October 2015 4 Rosenfeld CV
Presentations:
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
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.
October 2015 5 Rosenfeld CV
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.
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.
October 2015 6 Rosenfeld CV
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.
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.
October 2015 7 Rosenfeld CV
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.
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.
October 2015 8 Rosenfeld CV
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
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 Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
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 Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 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 United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 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
October 2015 9 Rosenfeld CV
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 Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana
Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008
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
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2008
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation
A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2006, October 2007
Rosenfeld Trial: January 2008
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino
Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2009
Rosenfeld Trial: March 2010
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
October 2015 10 Rosenfeld CV
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles
Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust;
Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008, October 2008
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch
Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a
California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma
corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299)
Rosenfeld Deposition: January 2008
In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas
Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens
Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil
Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM)
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division
Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2010
Rosenfeld Trial: October 2010
In the District Court of Texas 21st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
Rosenfeld Trial: May 2009
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013