HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 - Written Communications - Chermak.,
T 510.S3S.4200
F 510,836.4205
1939 Harrison Street, st,. 150
Oakland. CA 9,:512
wwwJozeaudrury corn
doug@lozea,udrury com
Members of the Planning Commission
sdonn@chulavistaca.gov
io .:
writig behalf Srtrs 'llice E l
Rponsibl ("SER "its rs g th Cty V
("FE"g h Oay an ,d T
d i Eoa R O wy
i
.i
R ig e i
rt s l a F y
C .is be
g y .
p i
th l E Q '),b..
100 ,e q.,s rtin r je I i sy
rt fie 3 ro rt l y h y
mme ctio r (R--04 H
SAFER Comments on Otay Ranch Planning Alea 12 Project
May 21 . 2019
Page2of5
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required.
ject may h
ific ff (§18.;Laurel Heights
Improvement Ass'n v. Regents f the University of California ()"L Hs I'
6 1112,;No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 74)1 68,7,8 ;
Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas 1994)4 57 ,16
ty re on Q Gn§§16 164 cl t Q
ie q c "
Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego (1 8
5 6 ."lt
Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under
n )n t
n t c c
Id. Fund f Environmental
Defense v. County of Orange l
151 h Q l ncy
l h c
11 .
Q q c is
q
c l
new stgnificant effects or a substantial increase in the seVerity of
ffects;
2 )ta c ce d w
j k W c re j I
eg D ara fi e ml
effct i cre se ifi fi
eff ;o
SAFER Comments on Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
May 21, 2019
Pago 3 of 5
EIR
EIR
be
be
z gc nvl a P
il mg v ce c T ty a
n 2003 PA E ,in
ig:
1. T p Pjc Is n ti iff ec th
az i th 2003 E .2003 SP I id n z e
·Prcijcr a;1ra .I ,2003 SPA '·
riented co ses r
c thi Pa g e 12 F it " "[n]o
resident/a/ or Industrial uses are proposed In Planning Area 12." 2003
· P EI . 2-1 (d)A io EQ be
· ··o r "ti p t" yzed
i ri c me Si rra Club v. County of S n ma (1992) 6 .p 4th
1307, 1320; American Canyon Community v. American Canyon (2006) 145
pp 4 1062. A d nd ited mo ifi s p
p v ts. is ifica cal chanqe - it i
ec ra se a w a ut n ifi
m 2003 SPA EI z P
s co n m th re ti
th P .Th th "th
p se odifi p rm v
e h FEI w rt ed · 4 T cou pe
n ca i ize fr 75 90 ee ig t
SAFER Comments on Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
May 21, 2019
Page 4 of 5
Ventura Foothill Neighbors of Ventura
lyz ct sso tt e
jt.
.The jct ill cert ly increase rv poice,fire
coi ly th ER e Trd
ee kleg se tt
F F ('F')pr
0 R o T co
e k
ly
p
h g
0 h
ys ·I idenified habia tor northn
-hrrir n urwin wl h Prj it N tio i thes
T ly
ee be
e h T
Frte j
g h i
s
g
003.F e ,00 P I
h j ld h ig .T
ec co ff its p g ee m rt
lt n ,T r t,
g 0 bett se ru k ,g fied rk ift
SAFER Comments on Olay Ranch Planning Area t 2 Project
May 21, 2019
Page 5 of 5
For example, Tier 4 construction equipment was not available until 2015, and
measures. Also, greenhouse gas mitigation measures are now feasible that
panels, and other measures.
n dm E,doe n v y po
ng dd add a aum.v i re
wed,th urr Tird in num es
n y 00 vi,lev p d T gifi g
h ms ayz pple IR
F bov ,h City prep n yz d
mi g h pa j T City ay y th 16-y d 0 SPA
I .
Scey ,
Dg rmk
VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
June 18, 2019
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
John McCann, Councilmember
Jill Galvez, Councilmember
Stephen Padilla, Councilmember
Mike Diaz, Councilmember
City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
msalas@chulavistaca.gov,
jmccann@chulavistaca.gov,
jgalvez@chulavistaca.gov,
spadilla@chulavistaca.gov,
mdiaz@chulavistaca.gov
c/o CityClerk@chulavistaca.gov
Stann Donn, Project Manager
Development Services Department
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
sdonn@chulavistaca.gov
Re: Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project – Consideration of Addendum
(IS17-0005) to Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 02-04;
Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial
GDP (MPA17-0012), SPA Plan (MPA17-0011) and associated regulatory
documents
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
I am writing on behalf of the Supporters’ Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”) and its members living in the City of Chula Vista (“SAFER”) concerning the Otay
Ranch Planning Area 12 Project, and the Third Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Planning Area 12 (EIR-02-04 / SCH #1989010154). On May 22, 2019, the Chula Vista Planning
Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council consider the third
Addendum to FEIR 02-04, approve a resolution amending the Otay Ranch GDP, and additional
recommendations related to the development of 300 residential units to the northeastern portion
of Planning Area 12, which is also referred to as Freeway Commercial North (FC-2) (“Project”).
This letter hereby reincorporates by reference the comments that SAFER made regarding the
Project in its May 21, 2019 letter to the Planning Commission.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 2
The City of Chula Vista (“City”) is proposing to approve the Project without review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Pub. Res. Code section 21000, et
seq., based on the assertion that the Project is consistent with the previously certified 2003 Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 (EIR-02-04 / SCH #1989010154) (“2003 EIR”). The City
contends that under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental
review is required. Instead, the City relies on a brief addendum prepared for the Project, entitled
“Third Addendum to EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Planning Area 12” (“Third Addendum”).
A number of highly qualified experts have reviewed the proposed Project and its
environmental effects. Environmental consulting firm SWAPE; wildlife ecologist Shawn
Smallwood, Ph.D; and traffic engineer Daniel Smith. Jr., P.E. have identified a number of
significant impacts from the proposed Project including air quality impacts, impacts to biological
resources, and traffic impacts, as well as omissions and flaws in the documents relied upon by
staff. These comments are attached hereto as Exhibits A through C. SAFER will also be
separately submitting additional expert comments from Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis
“Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH.
By opting to proceed with an Addendum instead of the required EIR, the City has
deprived the members of the public of the public review and circulation requirement available
for EIRs. SAFER urges the City Council not to adopt the Third Addendum to FEIR 02-04 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 plans to add 300 dwelling units to the northeastern portion of Planning Area
12, also known as FC-2. All 300 units would be added to the area east of Town Center Drive.
The west portion of the FC-2 site would remain unchanged. The project site is surrounded by
other Otay Ranch development areas including Village 6 to the west, Village 11 to the east, a
portion of the existing Eastlake community to the north and northeast, Village 7 to the southwest,
and the EUC to the south of Birch Road. Eastlake High School and a commercial area are
located north of the project site and the Arco Olympic Training Center is located east of the
project site, immediately adjacent to Otay Lake.
The additional units would be designed as a mid-rise style building, consisting of
residential units and ground-floor retail which would wrap around an above-grade parking
structure. This design feature would eliminate the need for large areas of surface parking lots
and allow for an enhanced pedestrian-oriented design. It would also provide accessible parking
for occupants as the residential units and ground-floor retail space would surround the parking
structure. With this density increase proposed by this Addendum, the proposed modifications
would also increase the maximum building height to 84 feet and 8 inches above-grade.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 3
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) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123 (Laurel Heights II); 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.)
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 (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 664–65 [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
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 4
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 significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15162(a)-(b). Here, evidence indicates that the project contemplated by
the 2003 EIR was entirely unrelated to residential uses and has undergone significant changes to
requiring substantial revisions to the EIR, not surprisingly, that new information and mitigations
are now available that must be considered in an EIR.
DISCUSSION
I. THE 2003 EIR HAS NO INFORMATIONAL VALUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL
ASPECT OF 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 (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950
(“San Mateo Gardens”). 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 2003 EIR, the City cannot reasonably
claim that it addresses, i.e., provides some informational value regarding the potential
environmental impacts of the 300 residential units proposed as part of the Project.
The Project includes 300 units of residential housing that have never been analyzed in
any previous CEQA document. A thorough review of the 2003 EIR confirms that no
mention is made of any residential aspect of the redevelopment project. Instead, the 2003
EIR analyzed freeway-oriented commercial uses that are anticipated to occur within Planning
Area 12 FC Site. It specifically stated that “[n]o residential or industrial uses are proposed in
Planning Area 12.” 2003 SPA EIR, p. 2-1 (emphasis added). Thus, none of the 2003 EIR’s
discussion provides any information that would assist the City in determining the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed 300 residential units. The project considered in the 2003
EIR simply has no relevance to the environmental impact of the construction and occupancy of
300 residential housing units. Indeed, SWAPE observes that the land use changes in the
proposed Project vary significantly from those contemplated in the 2003 EIR. SWAPE notes
that “ Further, SWAPE observes that“[t]hese land use changes present a substantial change in
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 5
the proposed Project as the 2003 EIR does not evaluate impacts resulting from residential or
hotel land uses.” Exhibit A, p. 4.
Since the 2003 EIR does not contain a description of residential components, 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.
II. EVEN IF THE 2003 EIR WAS 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 2003 EIR has some relevance to evaluating the environmental
impacts of this Project, numerous substantial changes in the development plans have occurred
such as the inclusion of 300 new residential units, information included in the previous addenda,
new information of substantial importance has arisen, and substantial changes in circumstances
have taken place that require a revision of the dated 2003 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 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.
All of the evidence indicates that the project considered by the 2003 EIR has undergone
significant changes to the project and its circumstances requiring substantial revisions to that 16-
year old EIR.
A. A New EIR is Required Because the 2003 EIR Relies on an Inaccurate
Traffic Analysis.
The comment of traffic engineer Daniel Smith is attached as Exhibit C (“Smith
Comment”). Mr. Smith’s concerns are summarized below.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 6
Mr. Smith notes the significant deficiency of the transportation analysis in the 2003 EIR.
That analysis was performed under the assumption that State Route 125 (“SR 125”) would be
developed to 10 lanes north of Olympic Parkway and to 8 lanes south of Olympic Parkway.
Smith Comment, p. 2. However, SR 125 remains just 4 lanes with no signs of future widening.
Id. Mr. Smith notes that the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) does not
have any plans to widen SR 125 until 2050, and then only to 8 lanes. Id. As Mr. Smith notes,
“the FEIR was prepared under transportation system assumptions that are no longer relevant to
the current situation or this Addendum and the prior addendums.” Id. This is a substantial
change with respect to the 2003 EIR and triggers the preparation of a subsequent EIR and the
preparation of an EIR for the specific Project.
B. A New EIR is Required Because the Addition of 300 Residential Units is a
Substantial Change from the 2003 EIR and there is Substantial Evidence
that the Residential Element of the Project Will Result in Emissions of
Formaldehyde to the Air that Will Have a Significant Health Impact on
Future Residents.
Even if the 2003 EIR was somehow relevant to the current Project, the City would still be
required to prepare a supplemental EIR. The inclusion of 300 new residential units as part of the
Project (and 600 residential units from the first two addenda) is a substantial change from the
2019 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).
As discussed in the supplemental letter from Mr. Offermann, 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 2003 because there was no residential
element of the Project at that time. Accordingly, the City violated CEQA by not preparing a
supplemental EIR 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 2003 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 Third Addendum would constitute an abuse of
discretion.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 7
III. 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.
As the California Supreme Court held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt
project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result
in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”
Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310,
319-320 [“CBE v. SCAQMD”], citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,
75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491,
504–505. “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21068;
see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the
CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d
at 83. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to
be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 [“CBE v. CRA”].
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004)
124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert
the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the
ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also
functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive
citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its
action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-
government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.
Under the “fair argument” standard applicable to environmental review under Pub. Res.
Code § 21151, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project
may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the
agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus
Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical
Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair
argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR
rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA.
Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. An effect on the environment need not be
“momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not
trivial.” No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard
accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 8
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed
by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public
agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based
on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by
contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine
who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential
environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than
factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether
substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that
“it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference
to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in
favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. As a matter of law,
“substantial evidence includes . . . expert opinion.” Pub.Res.Code § 21080(e)(1); 14 Cal. Code
Regs. § 15064(f)(5). CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting
evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the
environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(5);
Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.
B. The 2019 Addendum Relies on Unsubstantiated Parameters that
Underestimate Project Air Quality Impacts.
SWAPE notes that while the Third Addendum relies on emissions calculated from the
California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.1 ("CalEEMod"), several of
the values that were input into this model are not consistent with the information that was include
with the Project’s documents. Exhibit A (“SWAPE Comment”), pp. 1-2. SWAPE notes that this
results in a significant underestimation of the emissions associated with the Project. Id, p. 2.
i. The 2019 Emission Estimates Underestimate the Amount of Grading
Hauling Trips.
SWAPE compared the CalEEMod modeling for the 2003 EIR to the CalEEMod for the
proposed Project and found that the proposed Project is modeled assuming 14,891 less hauling
trips during the grading phase of construction than the 2003 Project, despite both projects
requiring the same amount of material import and the Project Applicant comparing the Project’s
2019 emissions to 2003 emissions to determinate significant impacts. Id., pp. 2-3. SWAPE
notes that this results in a significant underestimation of the Project’s emissions that the “2019
Addendum’s claim that there are no new significant sources of construction air emissions is
based on a flawed analysis.” Id., p. 3. Thus, an updated air model should be prepared.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 9
ii. Estimated NOx Emissions from the Project Exceed Applicable
Thresholds
SWAPE prepared an updated CalEEMod model of the proposed Project with corrected
input parameters. They found that the Project’s construction-related NOx emissions exceed the
250 pounds per day (lbs/day) threshold set forth by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(“SDAPCD”). Id.. They also found that these emissions are more significant than those
associated with the project described in the 2003 EIR:
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Model NOx
2003 Project 257.9
SWAPE 2019 Project 260.4
SDAPCD Thresholds 250
Exceed? Yes
Id., p. 4. Because of these significant impacts, an EIR should be prepared that includes an
updated air pollution model to adequately estimate the Project’s emissions, and the EIR should
additional feasible mitigation measures to reduce these emissions.
C. The Addendum Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project Will
Not Result in a New Significant Health Risks to Nearby Sensitive Receptors.
Neither the 2003 EIR nor the Third Addendum conducted a health risk assessment
(“HRA”) to evaluate the health risk of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) to nearby sensitive
receptors during construction and operation of the Project. The Third Addendum claims the
following:
[N]o new significant sources of construction or operational air emissions or health
risk impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR would occur with implementation
of the proposed modifications to the proposed project.
Third Addendum, p. 114. However, SWAPE finds “[t]his justification is entirely
unsubstantiated, as the 2003 EIR failed to evaluate the health risk impacts associated with any
Project activities. SWAPE Comment, p. 5. SWAPE demonstrates the proximity of residential
land uses to the Project site and notes that potential health-related impacts to these local
residential sensitive receptors have not been evaluated in any document. Id., pp 6-7. The
development of new sensitive receptors near the Project site is a substantial change in
circumstances from the 2003 EIR that must be evaluated in a subsequent EIR that evaluates
health risks to these local receptors.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”)
recommends that all short-term projects, such as Project construction, lasting at least two months
be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors and that exposure from projects lasting
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 10
more than six months should 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. SWAPE Comment, p. 7. Thus, in order to quantify and evaluate
the health risk posed by the Project from DPM, SWAPE conducted a screening-level HRA. Id.,
pp. 8-10. SWAPE found the following cancer risks:
The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR)
Activity Duration
(years)
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
ASF Cancer
Risk
Construction 0.25 0.0718 361 10 9.8E-07
3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 3rd Trimester
Exposure 9.8E-07
Construction 2.00 0.0718 1090 10 2.4E-05
Infant Exposure
Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 2.4E-05
Construction 0.25 0.0718 572 3 4.6E-07
Operation 13.75 0.1831 572 3 4.7E-05
Child Exposure Duration 14.00 Child Exposure 4.7E-05
Operation 14.00 0.1831 261 1 7.4E-06
Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 Adult Exposure 7.4E-06
Lifetime Exposure
Duration 30.00 Lifetime Exposure 7.9E-05
Id., p. 10. The child and infant cancer risks are thus 47 and 24 in one million, respectively, and
the excess cancer risk of the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 79 in one million.
Comparing this to the appropriate CEQA threshold, SWAPE found that “the child, infant, and
lifetime cancer risks all exceed the SDAPCD’s threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the 2019 Addendum.”
Id. Because the 2003 EIR and the Third Addendum failed to conduct an HRA, the Third
Addendum fails to provide substantial evidence that the health risk posed by the Project’s
construction and operation is less-than-significant. Moreover, because the 2003 EIR never
conducted an HRA, the health risk posed by the Project is new information which must be
analyzed in an EIR or a Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than an Addendum.
D. Failure to Include Feasible Mitigation Measures Related to Construction
NOx Emissions and Construction and Operational DPM Emissions
Because there is new information regarding construction impacts associated with the Project
that was not known at the time of the 2003 EIR, the City must include feasible mitigation
measures for the Project. SWAPE notes that the Project’s construction NOx and construction
and operational DPM emissions may result in significant impacts that were not identified earlier.
Moreover, the Third Addendum fails to implement additional mitigation measures beyond those
included in the 2003 EIR. Accordingly, SWAPE recommend a number of feasible mitigation
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 11
measures to reduce these impacts.
With respect to construction emissions, SWAPE suggests the following:
Limiting construction equipment idling beyond regulation requirements.
Requiring the implementation of diesel control measures, recommended by the
Northeast Diesel Collaborative.
Repowering or replacing older construction equipment engines.
Installing retrofit devices on existing construction equipment.
Implementing a construction vehicle inventory tracking system.
A series of “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,” recommended by the Sacramento
Air Quality Management District.
Id., pp. 11-15.
With respect to operational emissions, SWAPE recommends the following:
Incorporate bike lane street design on the site of the Project.
Limit parking supply.
Provide ride-sharing programs.
Implement a subsidized or discounted transit program.
Price workplace parking.
Implement employee parking “cash-out.”
Id., pp. 15-17.
E. The Third Addendum Fails to Adequately Assess Greenhouse Gas Impacts
SWAPE notes the complete failure of the Third Addendum to evaluate or mention the
greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions associated with the Project. Id., p. 17. SWAPE further
details the flawed reasoning in the 2017 Memorandum on the Air Quality and GHG Impacts for
Planning Area 12 (“2017 AQ/GHG Memo”), which ignores the on ground situation with respect
to the project described in the 2003 EIR. Id. SWAPE ultimately concludes that there is
inadequate information to determine the significance of GHG emissions with respect to the
Project:
The 2017 AQ/GHG Memo’s incorrect methodology coupled with the 2019
Addendum’s omission of any GHG emissions assessment does not reflect a good-
faith effort to describe the GHG emissions or impacts resulting from the 2019
Project. As a result, the Applicant fails to prepare an adequate assessment of the
Project’s GHG emissions impact, and therefore the 2019 Addendum should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance. Prior to Project approval, the
Applicant must prepare an EIR which adequately evaluates and mitigates the
Project’s GHG emissions.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 12
Id., p. 18.
F. The Third Addendum Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project
Will Not Result in New Significant Impacts on Biological Resources.
The comment of Dr. Shawn Smallwood is attached as Exhibit B (“Smallwood
Comment’). Dr. Smallwood has identified several issues with the Addendum for the Project. His
concerns are summarized below.
i. There Is New Information Not Known At the Time of the 2003 EIR That
Shows That The Project Will Have Significant Effects.
Dr. Smallwood finds several factors showing that there is new information with respect to
the Third Addendum that was not available nor analyzed at the time of the 2003 EIR. This
information all must be analyzed and mitigated in a subsequent EIR.
First, there have been 26 species of vertebrate wildlife known to occur in the project area
that have been assigned special status signifying greater conservation concern since 2003. Dr.
Smallwood notes that the Third Addendum “does not address potential project impacts or
mitigation related to tricolored blackbird or any of the 26 special-status species that our state or
federal governments have recognized as in need of greater conservation concern since 2003.”
Smallwood Comment, p. 2. Much of Dr. Smallwood’s comments relate to window collisions,
and many of these 26 species are the types of birds that typically collide with windows of houses
and building façades during migration or dispersal. Id.
Second, Dr. Smallwood finds that “since the 2003 FEIR there has been the proliferation
of structural glass in building construction and an increase in window-to-wall ratios.” Id. Dr.
Smallwood observes that the increased use of glass in new structures increases the bird-window
collision hazard of developments. Id.
Third, Dr. Smallwood notes that there was very sparse research in 2003 regarding
wildlife-automobile collision on roadways. Id. His letter describes much of the research that has
occurred since the 2003 EIR and would show the proposed Project could result in significant
mortality to wildlife. Id., p. 15.
Finally, Dr. Smallwood also notes that the standard protocol for detection surveys for
burrowing owls was released in 2012, years after the 2003 EIR. Id., p. 16.
ii. The Third Addendum Fails to Analyze and Mitigate the Impact of
Window Collisions on Birds at the Project Site.
Dr. Smallwood describes how window collisions, which are typically from glass-façades
of buildings are often characterized one of the main sources of human-caused bird mortality. Id.,
pp. 5-7. These impacts were not analyzed in the Third Addendum. Using conservative factors
and based on information provided in the 2003 EIR as well as the three addenda for the 2003
EIR, he predicts that the proposed Project would result in 6,033 bird-window collision fatalities
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 13
per year. Id., p. 8. The 50-year toll from this annual fatality rate would be 101,640 bird deaths.
Id. Dr. Smallwood finds that “[t]his impact would be significant, especially considering that the
predicted fatality rate can be prevented by implementing appropriate mitigation measures.” Id.,
p. 9.
iii. The Third Addendum Fails to Address the Potential Adverse Impact on
Wildlife from Vehicle Collisions Due to Increased Traffic from the
Project.
Dr. Smallwood notes that according to the Third Addendum, the Project would generate
7,681 daily traffic trips. Id., p. 15. He states that these trips have the potential to kill wildlife
(including special-status species) at locations well beyond the Project’s footprint. Id. The
impacts are not analyzed in the 2003 EIR or the Third Addendum.
Vehicle collisions can significantly impact all kinds of wildlife. In terms of avian
mortality, it is estimated that vehicle collisions result in the death of 89 million to 340 million
birds per year. Id. Dr. Small wood related a number of relevant studies of traffic caused wildlife
mortality. He finds that “[a]n analysis is needed of whether increased traffic on roads in and
around Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 would similarly result in intense local impacts on
wildlife.” Id. Without analyzing the impacts of vehicle collision on wildlife, the Third
Addendum fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project’s impacts on biological resources
would be less than significant.
Factors that affect the rate of vehicle collision with wildlife include: the type of roadway,
human population density, temperature, extent of vegetation cover, and intersections with
streams and riparian vegetation. Id. The City should formulate mitigation measures based on
those factors in an EIR.
iv. The Third Addendum Lacks Analysis of Cumulative Impacts.
Dr. Smallwood finds that the Third Addendum fails to provide a cumulative impacts
analysis related to bird-window collisions and road mortality. Id., p. 16. This analysis must be
included in an EIR for the Project.
v. A Subsequent EIR Should Be Prepared that Includes Feasible Mitigation
Measures.
Dr. Smallwood discusses a number of bird-window collision factors and their
applicability to the proposed Project. Id., pp. 9-12. He utilizes these factors to recommend
mitigation measures related to bird collisions for the Project. Mitigation measures for bird-
window collision or road mortality of wildlife include the following:
Detection surveys
Post-construction fatality monitoring
Retrofitting to reduce impacts
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 14
Siting and Designing to minimize impacts
Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts
Use of material to minimize the effects of transparency and reflectance in building
materials.
Compensatory mitigation to fund wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of
injured animals.
Id., pp. 12-14, 16-17. These mitigation measures should be included in an EIR for the Project.
G. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the Project
Will Result in Significant Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
SAFER references the separately submitted letter from Bud Offermann regarding the
indoor air quality impacts associated with the Project. 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.
The Third Addendum fails to address formaldehyde emissions, which 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. 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
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 15
‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the
Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public
health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000,
subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future 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 Third 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.
IV. The Project Description is Insufficient.
A. The Project Description is Inadequate to Evaluate Environmental Impacts.
The adequacy of an EIR’s project description is closely linked to the adequacy of the
EIR’s analysis of the project’s environmental effects. As a result, one of the important
requirements of CEQA is that the project description not be confusing, shifting, or open-
ended. This is to ensure that project impacts are analyzed properly and accurately. “An
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally
sufficient EIR.” County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.
One aspect of the Project description that is particularly important to determining a
residential project’s environmental impacts is the number of people expected to live in a new
housing development. Many environmental impacts are dependent on the number of residents,
including GHG emissions, energy use, traffic, public services, among others. Here, the Third
Addendum does not disclose even an estimate of how many people will live the in 300 proposed
units. Indeed, the Third Addendum does not disclose how many bedrooms each unit will be.
The number of bedrooms per unit will have a direct impact on the number of people inhabiting
the 300 new units, and the environmental impacts of those units. Without even an estimate of
the proposed residential population, the Project’s description is incomplete.
Moreover, CEQA requires an analysis of the full build out of a project, meaning the
maximum size project that could be built under the entitlements sought. Stanislaus Natural
Heritage Project b. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 195-206. Without a limit
on how many bedrooms each unit will be, the CEQA analysis must assume the units will all be
built with the maximum number of bedrooms permitted. This was not what was analyzed in the
Third Addendum.
B. The Project Description Improperly Piecemeals the Project.
CEQA mandates “that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping
a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact on the environment --
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 16
which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” Bozung v. LAFCO, 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84
(1975); City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452 (1989). Before
undertaking a project, the lead agency must assess the environmental impacts of all reasonably
foreseeable phases of a project and a public agency may not segment a large project into two or
more smaller projects in order to mask serious environmental consequences. As the Court of
Appeal stated:
The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the public,
of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the entire project,
from start to finish. . . the purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel
government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in
mind.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles, 103 Cal.App.4th 268 (2002)
(emphasis added).
Similarly, an initial study must consider the “whole of an action.” 14 Cal. Code Regs. §
15378(a). That means:
[T]he environmental review accompanying the first discretionary approval must
evaluate the impacts of the ultimate development authorized by that approval. …
Even though further discretionary approvals may be required before development
can occur, the agency’s environmental review must extend to the development
envisioned by the initial approvals. It is irrelevant that the development may not
receive all necessary entitlements or may not be built. Piecemeal environmental
review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result will not be
permitted.
See Kostka, et al., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 6.52, p. 298.
Here, the Third Addendum considers potential impacts associated with the development
of 300 residential units. It fails to consider the commercial and residential development in FC-2
associated with the first two addenda to the 2003 EIR. The courts have rejected precisely this
type of “piecemealing” or failure to consider cumulative impacts. In Arviv Ent., Inc. v. South
Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1341, a developer received a series of
categorical exemptions for a series of projects in the same area: 5 units, then 2 units, then 14
units (negative declaration), and finally 5 units, calling them all separate “projects.” The court
rejected this approach and held that the developer had “failed to consider the cumulative impacts
of the project as a whole.” Id. at 1346. The court held that therefore the actions were part of the
same “project as a whole” and had to be analyzed together in a single CEQA environmental
impact report. CEQA requires that “environmental considerations do not become submerged by
chopping a large project into many little ones – each with a minimum potential impact on the
environment – which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” Bozung, 13 Cal.3d at
283-84. Thus, an EIR must be prepared for the Project that considers the cumulative aspects of
the Project as a whole.
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Project
June 18, 2019
Page 17
CONCLUSION
For the above and other reasons, the City Council should direct Planning Staff to prepare
and circulate an EIR for the proposed Project for public review.
Sincerely,
Douglas Chermak
EXHIBIT A
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
June 12, 2019
Doug Chermak
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan
Planning Area 12 Project
Dear Mr. Chermak,
We have reviewed the February 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report (“2003 EIR”), the April 2015
Addendum to the 2003 EIR (“2015 Addendum”), the June 2016 Second Addendum to the 2003 EIR
(“2016 Addendum”), the May 2019 Third Addendum to the 2003 EIR (“2019 Addendum”), and the 2017
Memorandum on the Air Quality and GHG Impacts for Planning Area 12 (“2017 AQ/GHG Memo”) for the
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area Plan Planning Area 12 Project (“Project”)
located in the City of Chula Vista (“City”). The 2019 Addendum proposes the construction and operation
of 15,000 square feet of commercial space, 900 residential units, a 148-room hotel, a 152-room hotel,
and a 2-acre park across the Project site.
Our review concludes that the 2019 Addendum fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. As
neither the 2019 Addendum nor the 2003 EIR adequately evaluate the Project’s Air Quality and GHG
impacts, and because the currently proposed 2019 Addendum Project differs significantly from the
project evaluated by the 2003 EIR, a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to
adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the currently
proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
The 2019 Addendum relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model
Version CalEEMod.2016.3.1 ("CalEEMod").1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on
site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and
1 CalEEMod website, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/
2
typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user
can change the default values and input project-specific values, but 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 and
GHG emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide a justification
for the values selected.3
When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, located in the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo, we found that
several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the
Project documents. As a result, emissions associated with the Project are greatly underestimated. A
Project-specific EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential impacts that construction
of the Project may have on regional and local air quality and global climate change.
Underestimated Amount of Grading Hauling Trips in 2019 Emission Estimates
According to the 2003 EIR, Project construction “would consist of a total of 570,000 cubic yards of
material” (2003 EIR, p. 4-4). The 2017 AQ/GHG Report models emissions from both the 2003 EIR’s
proposed Project and the 2019 Addendum’s proposed Project. Consistent with the grading import
estimates provided in the 2003 EIR, both models input a grading import material total of 570,000 cubic
yards of soil (see excerpts below) (2017 AQ/GHG Memo, pp. 10, pp. 29, pp. 52, pp. 73
2003 Proposed Project
2019 Proposed Project
As you can see in the excerpts above, both the CalEEMod models for the 2003 Project and the 2019
Project assume that construction will require an import of 570,000 cubic yards of soil during grading.
Review of the modeling demonstrates that the modeling for the 2003 Project assumes that construction
will require 71,250 hauling trips to import the 570,000 cubic yards of soil (see excerpt below) (2017
AQ/GHG Memo, pp. 13, pp. 33).
2 CalEEMod User Guide, p. 2, 9, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/
3 CalEEMod User Guide, p. 7, 13, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ (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.)
3
However, review of the CalEEMod modeling for the 2019 Project demonstrates that the Applicant
assumes it would only require 56,359 hauling trips in order to import the 570,000 cubic yards of soil (see
excerpt below) (2017 AQ/GHG Memo, pp. 56, pp. 77).
The excerpts above demonstrate that the 2019 Project is modeled assuming 14,891 less hauling trips
during the grading phase of construction than 2003 Project. This presents a significant issue as both
Projects require the same amount of material import and the Applicant compares the Project’s 2019
emissions to 2003 emissions to determine significance. The failure to model both projects assuming the
same number of hauling trips results in the 2019 Project’s emissions to be significantly underestimated.
Therefore, the 2019 Addendum’s claim that there are no new significant sources of construction air
emissions is based on a flawed analysis (2019 Addendum, p. 6). Prior to Project approval, an updated air
model should be prepared for the proposed Project that includes all of the required grading hauling
trips.
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
In an effort to accurately determine the Project’s construction emissions, we prepared an updated
CalEEMod model of the 2019 Project that includes corrected input parameters. In our updated
construction-only model, we included the 71,250 grading hauling trips required to import 570,000 cubic
yards of soil to the Project site.
When correct, site-specific input parameters are used to model emissions, we find that the Project’s
construction-related NOx emissions exceed the 250 pounds per day (lbs/day) threshold set forth by the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).4 Moreover, the proposed Projects construction-
related NOx emissions are more significant that the 2003 EIR’s emissions (see table below).
4 https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/july_2016_ceqa_thresholds_final_0.pdf, p. 9.
4
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Model NOx
2003 Project 257.9
SWAPE 2019 Project 260.4
SDAPCD Thresholds 250
Exceed? Yes
As demonstrated above, when correct, site-specific input parameters are used to model emissions,
construction-related NOx emissions for the 2019 Project would exceed SDAPCD thresholds and create a
more significant impact than the 2003 Project. It should be noted that the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo
evaluates impacts compared to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) criteria air
pollutant thresholds (2003 EIR, p. 5.4-8). Since the SCAQMD has more stringent emissions thresholds,
following the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo’s methodology would simply demonstrate a more significant impact.
Regardless, our modeling demonstrates that the 2019 proposed Project will be more significant than
what is stated in the 2019 Addendum. As a result, an EIR should be prepared that includes an updated
air pollution model to adequately estimate the Project’s emissions, and additional mitigation should be
incorporated to reduce these emissions to the maximum extent possible.
Significant Land Use Differences Between the 2003 and 2019 Projects
The 2019 Addendum is relying upon the 2003 EIR in order to determine Project significance. However,
due to the significant change in land uses from the proposed Project in 2003 to the 2019 proposed
Project, reliance on the 2003 EIR to determine Project emissions is inappropriate.
The 2003 EIR for the Project proposed to construct and operate approximately 1,215,000 square feet of
uses on the Project site (2003 EIR, p. 1-4). However, the 2019 Addendum states that the proposed
Project would include 900 residential units, 300 hotel room, 15,000 square feet of commercial space,
and 2.0-acres of public parkland (2019 Addendum, p. 1). The 2019 Addendum cites Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, which states:
“When an EIR has been certified… for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that
project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of
the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects” (2019 Addendum, pp. 2).
These land use changes present a substantial change in the proposed Project as the 2003 EIR does not
evaluate impacts resulting from residential or hotel land uses. While the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo models
the emissions resulting from the proposed 2019 Project, it is inappropriate to compare the emission
estimates to the 2003 EIR emissions to determine significance since this is a substantially different
project. As a result, the 2019 Project should be evaluated in a separate EIR. Furthermore, as shown in
5
the excerpts above, the 2019 Project would result in a more significant impact than the one evaluated in
the 2003 EIR, therefore, a new, project specific EIR is required.
Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The 2019 Addendum claims that no health risk impacts beyond those identified in the 2003 EIR would
occur as a result of the proposed 2019 Project (2019 Addendum, p. 6). This conclusion is incorrect,
however, as neither the 2003 EIR nor the 2019 Addendum evaluated the Project’s construction or
operation-related health risk impacts. The 2019 Addendum simply states,
“no new significant sources of construction or operational air emissions or health risk impacts
beyond those identified in the FEIR would occur with implementation of the proposed
modifications to the proposed project” (2019 Addendum, p. 114).
This justification is entirely unsubstantiated, as the 2003 EIR failed to evaluate the health risk impacts
associated with any Project activities. Therefore, we find the 2019 Addendum’s significance findings to
be incorrect and unsupported.
The claim that there are “no new significant sources of construction or operational air emissions or
health risk impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR” is completely incorrect. As noted in the sections
above, the 2019 Addendum relies on underestimated air emissions to determine significance. Moreover,
review of Google Earth demonstrates that the surrounding area has been developed with new
residential developments since preparation of the 2003 EIR and, as a result, the proposed Project may
present a health risk to these sensitive receptors that has not been evaluated (see excerpts below).
6
Project Site 2003
Project Site 2019
7
As you can see in the excerpts above, the area surrounding the Project site has been highly developed
with residential land uses since approval of the 2003 EIR. The potential health-related impacts to these
residential sensitive receptors has not yet been evaluated in any document or assessment prepared for
the proposed Project. Citing the CEQA Guidelines 15162, the 2019 Addendum states,
“When an EIR has been certified… for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that
project unless…
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR…” (2019 Addendum, p. 2).
The development of a large number of sensitive receptors near the Project site has result in a
substantial change in circumstances and, as a result, the 2003 EIR should not be used to determine the
significance. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared that evaluates the health risk posed to the nearby
sensitive receptors.
Furthermore, by failing to prepare an HRA the 2019 Addendum is inconsistent with recommendations
set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization
responsible for providing recommendations for health risk assessments in California. In February of
2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.5 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 an approximately 2.5-year construction period (2017 AQ/GHG Memo,
pp. 55, pp. 76). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two
months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.6 Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines,
health risk impacts from Project construction should have been evaluated by the 2019 Addendum.
Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will operate for a long period of
time. During operation, the Project will generate vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust
emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors to emissions. The OEHHA document
recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should 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).7 Although 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, health risks from Project operation should have
also been evaluated by the Project applicant, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2-month
and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent health
5 “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
6 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments .” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18
7 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessmen ts.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15
8
risk policy, and as such, an updated assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from
construction and operation should be included in an EIR for the 2019 Project.
In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, we
prepared a simple screening-level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate
that construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk
impact that was not previously identified or evaluated by the 2019 Addendum.
In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a
screening-level air quality dispersion model.8 The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in OEHHA9
and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)10 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, it is suggested that a more refined air model be
conducted to analyze the link between air emissions and the health risk.
We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction and
operational impacts to sensitive receptors using the annual construction emissions estimates from
SWAPE’s updated construction model and the mitigated annual operational emissions from the Project
Applicant’s air model provided in the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo. Review of the Project area in Google Earth
demonstrates that there are residential receptors located approximately 75 meters from the Project
site. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of
30 years, starting from the third trimester of pregnancy. We also assumed that construction and
operation of the Project would occur sequentially, with no gaps between each Project phase. Our
calculated annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 580.2
pounds of DPM over a 913-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous
average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume
emissions sources. To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the many phases
of Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate for construction by the following
equation.
𝐸𝑙�ℎ𝑟𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑎 (𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑟
𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎)= 580.2 𝑙𝑎𝑟
913 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑟 × 453.6 𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑟
𝑙𝑎 × 1 𝑎𝑎𝑦
24 �𝑙𝑟𝑟𝑟 × 1 �𝑙𝑟𝑟
3,600 𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟 ≈𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟓 𝒈𝒔⁄
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.003336 grams per second (g/s).
Subtracting the 913-day construction duration from the total residential exposure duration of 30 years,
we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project’s operational
8 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
9 “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
10 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf
9
DPM emissions for an additional 27.5 years approximately. The operational CalEEMod model’s annual
emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 591.6 pounds of DPM per
year. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimated
the following emission rate for Project operation.
𝐸𝑙�ℎ𝑟𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑎 (𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑟
𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎)= 591.6 𝑙𝑎𝑟
365 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑟 × 453.6 𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑟
𝑙𝑎 × 1 𝑎𝑎𝑦
24 �𝑙𝑟𝑟𝑟 × 1 �𝑙𝑟𝑟
3,600 𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟 ≈𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟖𝟓𝟎𝟖 𝒈𝒔⁄
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.008509 g/s. In order to reflect the
Project area delineated in Figure 2 of the 2019 Addendum, construction and operational activity was
simulated as an approximately 50-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 480
meters by 422 meters (Figure 2, 2019 Addendum, pp. 18). A release height of three meters was selected
to represent the height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and
an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume
dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for
wind speed and direction distribution.
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average
concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.11
The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately
0.7178 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by
10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.0718 µg/m3 for construction. For Project
operation, the single-hour concentration in AERSCREEN is approximately 1.831 µg/m3 DPM at
approximately 75 meters downwind. Again, multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an
annualized average concentration of 0.1831 µg/m3 for operation.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptor located closest to the Project site during
construction using applicable health risk assessment methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the
SDAPCD. Consistent with the construction schedule utilized by 2017 AQ/GHG Memo, the annualized
average concentration for construction was used for the first trimester of life (0.25 years), the infantile
stage of life (0-2 years), and the first 0.25 years of the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). The annualized
average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which
makes up the rest of the child stage of life and the entirety of the adult stage of life (16 to 30 years).
Consistent with OEHHA guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened
susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.12 According to the updated
guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life
(infant) and should be multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years).
11 EPA (Oct. 1992) Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised,
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:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html, Table 4.2, p. 4-36.
12 “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
10
Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 95th percentile breathing rates
for infants.13 Finally, according to SDAPCD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of
1 for the 3rd trimester, infant, and child receptors.14 In accordance with OEHHA guidance, we utilized an
FAH value of 0.73 for the adult receptors.15 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
(µg/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
ASF Cancer
Risk
Construction 0.25 0.0718 361 10 9.8E-07
3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 3rd Trimester
Exposure 9.8E-07
Construction 2.00 0.0718 1090 10 2.4E-05
Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 2.4E-05
Construction 0.25 0.0718 572 3 4.6E-07
Operation 13.75 0.1831 572 3 4.7E-05
Child Exposure Duration 14.00 Child Exposure 4.7E-05
Operation 14.00 0.1831 261 1 7.4E-06
Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 Adult Exposure 7.4E-06
Lifetime Exposure
Duration 30.00 Lifetime Exposure 7.9E-05
As demonstrated above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and 3rd trimester gestations
at a sensitive receptor located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction
and operation, are approximately 7.4, 47, 24, and .98 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the
excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 79 in one million.
Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester stage of
pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The child, infant, and
lifetime cancer risks all exceed the SDAPCD’s threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the 2019 Addendum.
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
13 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-
assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19
14 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Program Health Risk Assessments.” SDAPCD,
May 2019, available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD_Hot_Spots_Supplemental_
Guidelines.pdf, pp. 4
15 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5
11
be more conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.16 The purpose of the screening-
level HRA shown above is to demonstrate this link between the proposed Project’s emissions and the
potential health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors. 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 determines a potentially significant impact, the Project Applicant should include a
reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to
nearby receptors. The Project Applicant may achieve this by conducting a more refined health risk
assessment that examines the air quality impacts generated by Project construction and operation using
site-specific meteorology. An EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the 2019 Project’s health
risk impact and should include mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
Our analysis demonstrates that the 2019 Project’s construction NOx as well as construction and
operational DPM emissions may result in a significant impact that was not previously identified.
Furthermore, the 2019 Addendum fails to implement any additional mitigation beyond the measures
included in the 2003 EIR (Table 1-1, 2003 EIR, p. 1-11 – 1-39). However, since the release of the 2003
EIR, more stringent mitigation has become feasible that would reduce these significant impacts. As a
result, in a new, project specific EIR, the Project Applicant should consider the measures listed below to
reduce the 2019 Project’s environmental impacts.
Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions
As previously mentioned, our updated air quality analysis and HRA demonstrate that when the 2019
Project’s activities are evaluated correctly, construction-related NOx and DPM emissions would result in
significant air quality and health risk impacts.
Mitigation measures to reduce these pollutants can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce Criteria Air Pollutants such
as particulate matter and NOx.17 DPM and NOx are a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion, and are
emitted by on-road vehicles and by off-road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant
emissions should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction
emissions.
Limit Construction Equipment Idling Beyond Regulation Requirements
Heavy duty vehicles will idle during loading/unloading and during layovers or rest periods with the
engine still on, which requires fuel use and results in emissions. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emissions Reduction Program limits idling of diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles to five minutes. Reduction in idling time beyond the five minutes required under the
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, p. 1-5
17http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
12
regulation would further reduce fuel consumption and thus emissions. The Project applicant must
develop an enforceable mechanism that monitors the idling time to ensure compliance with this
mitigation measure.
Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures
The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel
emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that
contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: 18
All diesel onroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines that
meet EPA 2007 onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA19
or the California Air Resources Board (CARB)20 to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85
percent.
All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.
All diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days must have either
(1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emission standards or (2) emission control technology
verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of
85 percent for engines 50 horse power (hp) and greater and by a minimum of 20 percent for
engines less than 50 hp.
Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines
The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA’s newer standards is limited.21
Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing
equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.22 These actions include but are not
limited to:
Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the
body of the equipment intact).
Engine repower may be a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a
long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine.
Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large
construction machines.23 Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines
18 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
19 For EPA’s list of verified technology: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/verification/verif-list.htm
20 For CARB’s list of verified technology: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
21http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf
22http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf
23 Repair, Rebuild, and Repower, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-
technologies-clean-diesel#repair
13
or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels (see section “Use Alternative Fuels for
Construction Equipment” for details). The original engine is taken out of service and a new engine with
reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission reductions can be achieved, depending
on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine’s ability to accept a more modern engine and emission
control system. It should be noted, however, that newer engines or higher tier engines are not
necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project Applicant check the actual emission
standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure the repower product is reducing
emissions for DPM.24
Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards.
Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel
equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher
locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders.
Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.25 Replacements often
require some re-engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are
benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.26
Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment
PM emissions from alternatively-fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing
retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit
devices for engine exhaust after-treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce
emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. 27 It should be noted that actual emissions
reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications.
Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System
CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures28 report recommends that the Project
Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to
ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such
as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower,
manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the
equipment. Specifically, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or
24 Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/420p11001.pdf
25 Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm#fact
26 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-technologies-
clean-diesel#cleaner
27 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-
technologies-clean-diesel#retrofit
28http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
14
generator, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a report prior to bringing said
equipment on site that includes:29
Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.
The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer,
and EPA/CARB verification number/level.
The Certification Statement30 signed and printed on the contractor’s letterhead.
Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a monthly report that, for
each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 31
Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site
date.
Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
o Source of supply
o Quantity of fuel
o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight).
In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Applicant implement the following
mitigation measures, called “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,”32 that are recommended by the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD):
1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off-
road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an
aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.
The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected
hours of use for each piece of equipment.
The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including
start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman.
This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject
heavy-duty off-road equipment.
The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the
project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no
construction activity occurs.
29 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
30 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf The
NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A.
31 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
32http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl_10-2013.pdf
15
2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating
that the heavy-duty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction
project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-
average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent
California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.
This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.
Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-
emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, and/or other options as they become available.
The District’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment
fleet that achieves this reduction.
3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel-powered
equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in
any one hour.
Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately. Non-compliant equipment will be documented and a summary
provided to the lead agency monthly.
A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.
A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the
duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any
30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall
include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.
4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine
compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or
regulations.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting equipment into the
Project’s construction fleet, which subsequently reduces NOx and DPM emissions released during
Project construction. A project specific EIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures,
as well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures
are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to
demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure
that the Project’s construction-related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project’s operational DPM emissions may present a potentially
significant impact. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation
measures that are applicable to the Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as
16
reduce criteria air pollutants such as particulate matter and NOx emissions.33 Therefore, to reduce the
Project’s operational DPM emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made.
Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (On-Site)
o Incorporating bicycle lanes, routes, and shared-use paths into street systems, new
subdivisions, and large developments can reduce VMTs. These improvements can help
reduce peak-hour vehicle trips by making commuting by bike easier and more
convenient for more people. In addition, improved bicycle facilities can increase access
to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or
station and increasing ridership. Bicycle access can also reduce parking pressure on
heavily-used and/or heavily-subsidized feeder bus lines and auto-oriented park-and-ride
facilities.
Limit Parking Supply
o This mitigation measure will change parking requirements and types of supply within
the Project site to encourage “smart growth” development and alternative
transportation choices by project residents and employees. This can be accomplished in
a multi-faceted strategy:
Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements
Creation of maximum parking requirements
Provision of shared parking
Provide Ride-Sharing Programs
o Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the
same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project should include a ride-sharing
program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership
and funding requirement. The project can promote ride-sharing programs through a
multi-faceted approach such as:
Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles
Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for
ride-sharing vehicles
Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides
Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program
o This project can provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to
incentivize the use of public transport. The project may also provide free transfers
between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly
subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from
parking to offset the cost of such a project.
Price Workplace Parking
o The project should implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This
may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above
market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee
33 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
17
parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available
alternatives.
o Though similar to the Employee Parking “Cash-Out” strategy, this strategy focuses on
implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for
employees to consider alternative modes for their work commute.
Implement Employee Parking "Cash-Out"
o The project can require employers to offer employee parking “cash-out.” The term
“cash-out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of
forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost
of the parking space to the employer.
When combined, these measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting
design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during
Project operation. A project specific EIR must be prepared to include mitigation measures, as well as
include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are
implemented to reduce operational DPM emissions to below thresholds. The Project Applicant also
needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval,
to ensure that the Project’s operational significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent
possible.
Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Assess Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The 2019 Addendum fails to prepare, evaluate, or even mention the proposed Project’s GHG emissions.
However, the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo includes an analysis of the 2003 Project and 2019 Project’s GHG
emissions. Review of the analysis demonstrates that the 2017 AQ/GHG Report relied upon incorrect and
unsubstantiated methodology and, as a result, cannot be utilized to determine Project significance. The
2017 AQ/GHG Memo states,
“Emissions of GHGs were calculated using the CalEEMod Model for both the Freeway
Commercial project and the project as currently proposed. GHG emissions from the project
would be lower than emissions from the Freeway Commercial uses, and the project’s efficiency
would be approximately 3 times greater” (p. 7).
As the above excerpt demonstrates, the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo claims that because the 2019 Project’s
emissions would be lower than the 2003 Project’s anticipated emissions that the 2019 Project would not
result in a new significant impact. We find this justification to be unsubstantiated as it is entirely
incorrect for the Applicant to arbitrarily compare the 2019 Project’s emissions to the 2003 Project’s
emissions because the 2003 Project was never developed on the site, and thus does not currently result
in any GHG emissions.
As a result of the Applicant’s failure to assess the Project’s GHG emissions impacts, the 2019 Addendum
fails to comply with CEQA guidelines. Namely, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4, subd. (a) states that “[t]he
determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead
18
agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064” and “[a] lead agency should make a good-faith
effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from a project.” The 2017 AQ/GHG Memo’s incorrect methodology coupled with the
2019 Addendum’s omission of any GHG emissions assessment does not reflect a good-faith effort to
describe the GHG emissions or impacts resulting from the 2019 Project. As a result, the Applicant fails to
prepare an adequate assessment of the Project’s GHG emissions impact, and therefore the 2019
Addendum should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Prior to Project approval, the
Applicant must prepare an EIR which adequately evaluates and mitigates the Project’s GHG emissions.
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.
Kaitlyn Heck
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 a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
City Park 2.00 Acre 2.00 87,120.00 0
Hotel 300.00 Room 10.00 435,600.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 608.00 Dwelling Unit 38.00 608,000.00 1739
Condo/Townhouse 292.00 Dwelling Unit 18.25 292,000.00 835
Strip Mall 15.00 1000sqft 0.34 15,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
13
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.6 40
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric
2019Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
556.22 0.022CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.005N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only
San Diego Air Basin, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 1 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
Project Characteristics - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report pp. 50
Land Use -
Construction Phase - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report, pp. 55
Grading - import and total acres graded per the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo, pp. 52
Vehicle Trips - construction only
Woodstoves - construction only
Energy Use -
Architectural Coating - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report, pp. 51
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 250.00 0.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 50.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 261.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,110.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 130.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 131.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/3/2023 12/31/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/5/2022 12/31/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/4/2018 12/31/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/18/2022 12/31/2018
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/19/2022 1/1/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/5/2018 1/1/2018
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/2/2017 7/2/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/6/2022 7/1/2018
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 2 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
tblFireplaces NumberGas 334.40 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 160.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 212.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 102.20 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 325.00 120.50
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 570,000.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.022
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 720.49 556.22
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.005
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 30.40 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 14.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 30.40 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 3 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 14.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 4 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
2017 0.7677 17.0306 5.1330 0.0329 1.1154 0.2700 1.3854 0.3983 0.2509 0.6493 0.0000 3,216.158
7
3,216.158
7
0.3725 0.0000 3,225.471
8
2018 1.0739 7.7938 7.8706 0.0214 1.0798 0.2901 1.3699 0.2906 0.2717 0.5623 0.0000 1,975.136
7
1,975.136
7
0.2020 0.0000 1,980.186
5
2019 5.8186 6.4172 7.2839 0.0218 1.2540 0.2140 1.4680 0.3369 0.2024 0.5393 0.0000 1,999.797
1
1,999.797
1
0.1616 0.0000 2,003.837
3
Maximum 5.8186 17.0306 7.8706 0.0329 1.2540 0.2901 1.4680 0.3983 0.2717 0.6493 0.0000 3,216.158
7
3,216.158
7
0.3725 0.0000 3,225.471
8
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
2017 0.7677 17.0306 5.1330 0.0329 1.1154 0.2700 1.3854 0.3983 0.2509 0.6493 0.0000 3,216.158
2
3,216.158
2
0.3725 0.0000 3,225.471
3
2018 1.0739 7.7938 7.8706 0.0214 1.0798 0.2901 1.3699 0.2906 0.2717 0.5623 0.0000 1,975.136
2
1,975.136
2
0.2020 0.0000 1,980.186
0
2019 5.8186 6.4172 7.2839 0.0218 1.2540 0.2140 1.4680 0.3369 0.2024 0.5393 0.0000 1,999.796
7
1,999.796
7
0.1616 0.0000 2,003.836
8
Maximum 5.8186 17.0306 7.8706 0.0329 1.2540 0.2901 1.4680 0.3983 0.2717 0.6493 0.0000 3,216.158
2
3,216.158
2
0.3725 0.0000 3,225.471
3
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 5 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 7-1-2017 9-30-2017 8.7634 8.7634
2 10-1-2017 12-31-2017 8.9403 8.9403
3 1-1-2018 3-31-2018 1.8816 1.8816
4 4-1-2018 6-30-2018 1.8735 1.8735
5 7-1-2018 9-30-2018 2.5274 2.5274
6 10-1-2018 12-31-2018 2.5571 2.5571
7 1-1-2019 3-31-2019 3.0245 3.0245
8 4-1-2019 6-30-2019 3.0273 3.0273
9 7-1-2019 9-30-2019 3.0606 3.0606
Highest 8.9403 8.9403
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 6 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 7.4115 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Energy 0.1967 1.7560 1.2645 0.0107 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.0000 4,438.772
8
4,438.772
8
0.1359 0.0581 4,459.481
6
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 120.6111 0.0000 120.6111 7.1279 0.0000 298.8090
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.3701 335.8677 357.2378 2.2082 0.0549 428.7870
Total 7.6082 1.8338 7.9831 0.0111 0.0000 0.1727 0.1727 0.0000 0.1727 0.1727 141.9813 4,785.562
1
4,927.543
4
9.4827 0.1129 5,198.267
4
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 7 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 7.4115 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Energy 0.1967 1.7560 1.2645 0.0107 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.0000 4,438.772
8
4,438.772
8
0.1359 0.0581 4,459.481
6
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 120.6111 0.0000 120.6111 7.1279 0.0000 298.8090
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.3701 335.8677 357.2378 2.2082 0.0549 428.7870
Total 7.6082 1.8338 7.9831 0.0111 0.0000 0.1727 0.1727 0.0000 0.1727 0.1727 141.9813 4,785.562
1
4,927.543
4
9.4827 0.1129 5,198.267
4
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: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 8 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 7/2/2017 12/31/2017 5 130
2 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2018 12/31/2019 5 522
3 Paving Paving 7/1/2018 12/31/2018 5 131
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2019 12/31/2019 5 261
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 1,822,500; Residential Outdoor: 607,500; Non-Residential Indoor: 675,900; Non-Residential Outdoor: 225,300; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 120.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 9 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 71,250.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 872.00 184.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 174.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 10 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.2 Grading - 2017
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 0.4954 0.0000 0.4954 0.2281 0.0000 0.2281 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3736 4.4161 2.5209 4.0300e-
003
0.1997 0.1997 0.1838 0.1838 0.0000 374.1390 374.1390 0.1146 0.0000 377.0049
Total 0.3736 4.4161 2.5209 4.0300e-
003
0.4954 0.1997 0.6951 0.2281 0.1838 0.4119 0.0000 374.1390 374.1390 0.1146 0.0000 377.0049
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.3880 12.6096 2.5644 0.0288 0.6096 0.0702 0.6798 0.1674 0.0671 0.2346 0.0000 2,831.696
3
2,831.696
3
0.2575 0.0000 2,838.133
8
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 6.1400e-
003
4.9800e-
003
0.0478 1.1000e-
004
0.0104 8.0000e-
005
0.0105 2.7700e-
003
7.0000e-
005
2.8400e-
003
0.0000 10.3234 10.3234 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 10.3331
Total 0.3941 12.6146 2.6122 0.0289 0.6200 0.0702 0.6903 0.1702 0.0672 0.2374 0.0000 2,842.019
7
2,842.019
7
0.2579 0.0000 2,848.466
9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 11 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.2 Grading - 2017
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 0.4954 0.0000 0.4954 0.2281 0.0000 0.2281 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3736 4.4161 2.5209 4.0300e-
003
0.1997 0.1997 0.1838 0.1838 0.0000 374.1385 374.1385 0.1146 0.0000 377.0044
Total 0.3736 4.4161 2.5209 4.0300e-
003
0.4954 0.1997 0.6951 0.2281 0.1838 0.4119 0.0000 374.1385 374.1385 0.1146 0.0000 377.0044
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.3880 12.6096 2.5644 0.0288 0.6096 0.0702 0.6798 0.1674 0.0671 0.2346 0.0000 2,831.696
3
2,831.696
3
0.2575 0.0000 2,838.133
8
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 6.1400e-
003
4.9800e-
003
0.0478 1.1000e-
004
0.0104 8.0000e-
005
0.0105 2.7700e-
003
7.0000e-
005
2.8400e-
003
0.0000 10.3234 10.3234 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 10.3331
Total 0.3941 12.6146 2.6122 0.0289 0.6200 0.0702 0.6903 0.1702 0.0672 0.2374 0.0000 2,842.019
7
2,842.019
7
0.2579 0.0000 2,848.466
9
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 12 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.3 Building Construction - 2018
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 0.3497 3.0524 2.2943 3.5100e-
003
0.1957 0.1957 0.1840 0.1840 0.0000 310.2862 310.2862 0.0760 0.0000 312.1867
Total 0.3497 3.0524 2.2943 3.5100e-
003
0.1957 0.1957 0.1840 0.1840 0.0000 310.2862 310.2862 0.0760 0.0000 312.1867
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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 0.1260 3.2053 0.8816 6.6200e-
003
0.1594 0.0249 0.1843 0.0460 0.0238 0.0699 0.0000 642.7023 642.7023 0.0530 0.0000 644.0264
Worker 0.4864 0.3851 3.6937 9.7200e-
003
0.9126 6.7300e-
003
0.9193 0.2425 6.2100e-
003
0.2487 0.0000 878.2494 878.2494 0.0303 0.0000 879.0071
Total 0.6123 3.5904 4.5753 0.0163 1.0719 0.0317 1.1036 0.2885 0.0301 0.3186 0.0000 1,520.951
7
1,520.951
7
0.0833 0.0000 1,523.033
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 13 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.3 Building Construction - 2018
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 0.3497 3.0524 2.2942 3.5100e-
003
0.1957 0.1957 0.1840 0.1840 0.0000 310.2859 310.2859 0.0760 0.0000 312.1864
Total 0.3497 3.0524 2.2942 3.5100e-
003
0.1957 0.1957 0.1840 0.1840 0.0000 310.2859 310.2859 0.0760 0.0000 312.1864
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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 0.1260 3.2053 0.8816 6.6200e-
003
0.1594 0.0249 0.1843 0.0460 0.0238 0.0699 0.0000 642.7023 642.7023 0.0530 0.0000 644.0264
Worker 0.4864 0.3851 3.6937 9.7200e-
003
0.9126 6.7300e-
003
0.9193 0.2425 6.2100e-
003
0.2487 0.0000 878.2494 878.2494 0.0303 0.0000 879.0071
Total 0.6123 3.5904 4.5753 0.0163 1.0719 0.0317 1.1036 0.2885 0.0301 0.3186 0.0000 1,520.951
7
1,520.951
7
0.0833 0.0000 1,523.033
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 14 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.3 Building Construction - 2019
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 0.3081 2.7508 2.2399 3.5100e-
003
0.1683 0.1683 0.1583 0.1583 0.0000 306.8110 306.8110 0.0747 0.0000 308.6795
Total 0.3081 2.7508 2.2399 3.5100e-
003
0.1683 0.1683 0.1583 0.1583 0.0000 306.8110 306.8110 0.0747 0.0000 308.6795
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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 0.1125 3.0139 0.8097 6.5600e-
003
0.1594 0.0209 0.1802 0.0460 0.0200 0.0660 0.0000 637.9459 637.9459 0.0512 0.0000 639.2259
Worker 0.4486 0.3443 3.3296 9.4300e-
003
0.9126 6.6600e-
003
0.9192 0.2425 6.1400e-
003
0.2486 0.0000 851.7591 851.7591 0.0274 0.0000 852.4438
Total 0.5611 3.3582 4.1393 0.0160 1.0719 0.0275 1.0995 0.2885 0.0261 0.3146 0.0000 1,489.705
1
1,489.705
1
0.0786 0.0000 1,491.669
7
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 15 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.3 Building Construction - 2019
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 0.3081 2.7508 2.2399 3.5100e-
003
0.1683 0.1683 0.1583 0.1583 0.0000 306.8106 306.8106 0.0747 0.0000 308.6792
Total 0.3081 2.7508 2.2399 3.5100e-
003
0.1683 0.1683 0.1583 0.1583 0.0000 306.8106 306.8106 0.0747 0.0000 308.6792
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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 0.1125 3.0139 0.8097 6.5600e-
003
0.1594 0.0209 0.1802 0.0460 0.0200 0.0660 0.0000 637.9459 637.9459 0.0512 0.0000 639.2259
Worker 0.4486 0.3443 3.3296 9.4300e-
003
0.9126 6.6600e-
003
0.9192 0.2425 6.1400e-
003
0.2486 0.0000 851.7591 851.7591 0.0274 0.0000 852.4438
Total 0.5611 3.3582 4.1393 0.0160 1.0719 0.0275 1.0995 0.2885 0.0261 0.3146 0.0000 1,489.705
1
1,489.705
1
0.0786 0.0000 1,491.669
7
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 16 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.4 Paving - 2018
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 0.1077 1.1476 0.9692 1.4900e-
003
0.0626 0.0626 0.0576 0.0576 0.0000 136.3161 136.3161 0.0424 0.0000 137.3771
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.1077 1.1476 0.9692 1.4900e-
003
0.0626 0.0626 0.0576 0.0576 0.0000 136.3161 136.3161 0.0424 0.0000 137.3771
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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-
003
3.3300e-
003
0.0319 8.0000e-
005
7.8800e-
003
6.0000e-
005
7.9400e-
003
2.0900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
0.0000 7.5827 7.5827 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.5892
Total 4.2000e-
003
3.3300e-
003
0.0319 8.0000e-
005
7.8800e-
003
6.0000e-
005
7.9400e-
003
2.0900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
0.0000 7.5827 7.5827 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.5892
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 17 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.4 Paving - 2018
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 0.1077 1.1476 0.9692 1.4900e-
003
0.0626 0.0626 0.0576 0.0576 0.0000 136.3160 136.3160 0.0424 0.0000 137.3769
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.1077 1.1476 0.9692 1.4900e-
003
0.0626 0.0626 0.0576 0.0576 0.0000 136.3160 136.3160 0.0424 0.0000 137.3769
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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-
003
3.3300e-
003
0.0319 8.0000e-
005
7.8800e-
003
6.0000e-
005
7.9400e-
003
2.0900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
0.0000 7.5827 7.5827 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.5892
Total 4.2000e-
003
3.3300e-
003
0.0319 8.0000e-
005
7.8800e-
003
6.0000e-
005
7.9400e-
003
2.0900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
0.0000 7.5827 7.5827 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.5892
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 18 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2019
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 4.8250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0348 0.2395 0.2403 3.9000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 33.3200 33.3200 2.8100e-
003
0.0000 33.3903
Total 4.8598 0.2395 0.2403 3.9000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 33.3200 33.3200 2.8100e-
003
0.0000 33.3903
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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 0.0895 0.0687 0.6644 1.8800e-
003
0.1821 1.3300e-
003
0.1834 0.0484 1.2300e-
003
0.0496 0.0000 169.9611 169.9611 5.4600e-
003
0.0000 170.0977
Total 0.0895 0.0687 0.6644 1.8800e-
003
0.1821 1.3300e-
003
0.1834 0.0484 1.2300e-
003
0.0496 0.0000 169.9611 169.9611 5.4600e-
003
0.0000 170.0977
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 19 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2019
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 4.8250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0348 0.2395 0.2403 3.9000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 33.3199 33.3199 2.8100e-
003
0.0000 33.3903
Total 4.8598 0.2395 0.2403 3.9000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 33.3199 33.3199 2.8100e-
003
0.0000 33.3903
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category 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 0.0895 0.0687 0.6644 1.8800e-
003
0.1821 1.3300e-
003
0.1834 0.0484 1.2300e-
003
0.0496 0.0000 169.9611 169.9611 5.4600e-
003
0.0000 170.0977
Total 0.0895 0.0687 0.6644 1.8800e-
003
0.1821 1.3300e-
003
0.1834 0.0484 1.2300e-
003
0.0496 0.0000 169.9611 169.9611 5.4600e-
003
0.0000 170.0977
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 20 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 21 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
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 Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
City Park 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Condo/Townhouse 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Hotel 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Strip Mall 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 22 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,491.831
0
2,491.831
0
0.0986 0.0224 2,500.970
1
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,491.831
0
2,491.831
0
0.0986 0.0224 2,500.970
1
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1967 1.7560 1.2645 0.0107 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.0000 1,946.941
8
1,946.941
8
0.0373 0.0357 1,958.5115
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1967 1.7560 1.2645 0.0107 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.0000 1,946.941
8
1,946.941
8
0.0373 0.0357 1,958.5115
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 23 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 Low
Rise
6.8251e
+006
0.0368 0.3145 0.1338 2.0100e-
003
0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0000 364.2132 364.2132 6.9800e-
003
6.6800e-
003
366.3776
City Park 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
Condo/Townhous
e
4.19979e
+006
0.0227 0.1935 0.0824 1.2400e-
003
0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 224.1169 224.1169 4.3000e-
003
4.1100e-
003
225.4487
Hotel 2.5426e
+007
0.1371 1.2464 1.0470 7.4800e-
003
0.0947 0.0947 0.0947 0.0947 0.0000 1,356.826
7
1,356.826
7
0.0260 0.0249 1,364.889
6
Strip Mall 33450 1.8000e-
004
1.6400e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.7850 1.7850 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.7956
Total 0.1967 1.7560 1.2645 0.0107 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.0000 1,946.941
8
1,946.941
8
0.0373 0.0357 1,958.511
5
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 24 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 Low
Rise
6.8251e
+006
0.0368 0.3145 0.1338 2.0100e-
003
0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0000 364.2132 364.2132 6.9800e-
003
6.6800e-
003
366.3776
City Park 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
Condo/Townhous
e
4.19979e
+006
0.0227 0.1935 0.0824 1.2400e-
003
0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 224.1169 224.1169 4.3000e-
003
4.1100e-
003
225.4487
Hotel 2.5426e
+007
0.1371 1.2464 1.0470 7.4800e-
003
0.0947 0.0947 0.0947 0.0947 0.0000 1,356.826
7
1,356.826
7
0.0260 0.0249 1,364.889
6
Strip Mall 33450 1.8000e-
004
1.6400e-
003
1.3800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.7850 1.7850 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.7956
Total 0.1967 1.7560 1.2645 0.0107 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.1359 0.0000 1,946.941
8
1,946.941
8
0.0373 0.0357 1,958.511
5
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 25 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
2.58034e
+006
651.0124 0.0258 5.8500e-
003
653.4000
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Condo/Townhous
e
1.46681e
+006
370.0726 0.0146 3.3300e-
003
371.4299
Hotel 5.64102e
+006
1,423.213
3
0.0563 0.0128 1,428.433
1
Strip Mall 188400 47.5328 1.8800e-
003
4.3000e-
004
47.7071
Total 2,491.831
0
0.0986 0.0224 2,500.970
1
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 26 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
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 Low
Rise
2.58034e
+006
651.0124 0.0258 5.8500e-
003
653.4000
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Condo/Townhous
e
1.46681e
+006
370.0726 0.0146 3.3300e-
003
371.4299
Hotel 5.64102e
+006
1,423.213
3
0.0563 0.0128 1,428.433
1
Strip Mall 188400 47.5328 1.8800e-
003
4.3000e-
004
47.7071
Total 2,491.831
0
0.0986 0.0224 2,500.970
1
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 27 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 7.4115 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Unmitigated 7.4115 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
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
1.9300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
5.2756 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.2059 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Total 7.4115 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 28 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
1.9300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
5.2756 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.2059 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Total 7.4115 0.0778 6.7186 3.5000e-
004
0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0000 10.9216 10.9216 0.0107 0.0000 11.1898
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 29 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 357.2378 2.2082 0.0549 428.7870
Unmitigated 357.2378 2.2082 0.0549 428.7870
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
39.6136 /
24.9738
212.7070 1.2987 0.0323 254.7940
City Park 0 /
2.38296
6.6795 2.6000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
6.7040
Condo/Townhous
e
19.025 /
11.994
102.1553 0.6237 0.0155 122.3682
Hotel 7.61003 /
0.845559
29.7846 0.2491 6.1000e-
003
37.8292
Strip Mall 1.11109 /
0.680989
5.9114 0.0364 9.0000e-
004
7.0917
Total 357.2378 2.2082 0.0548 428.7870
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 30 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 Low
Rise
39.6136 /
24.9738
212.7070 1.2987 0.0323 254.7940
City Park 0 /
2.38296
6.6795 2.6000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
6.7040
Condo/Townhous
e
19.025 /
11.994
102.1553 0.6237 0.0155 122.3682
Hotel 7.61003 /
0.845559
29.7846 0.2491 6.1000e-
003
37.8292
Strip Mall 1.11109 /
0.680989
5.9114 0.0364 9.0000e-
004
7.0917
Total 357.2378 2.2082 0.0548 428.7870
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 31 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 120.6111 7.1279 0.0000 298.8090
Unmitigated 120.6111 7.1279 0.0000 298.8090
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
279.68 56.7725 3.3552 0.0000 140.6515
City Park 0.17 0.0345 2.0400e-
003
0.0000 0.0855
Condo/Townhous
e
134.32 27.2658 1.6114 0.0000 67.5497
Hotel 164.25 33.3413 1.9704 0.0000 82.6016
Strip Mall 15.75 3.1971 0.1889 0.0000 7.9207
Total 120.6112 7.1279 0.0000 298.8090
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 32 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
279.68 56.7725 3.3552 0.0000 140.6515
City Park 0.17 0.0345 2.0400e-
003
0.0000 0.0855
Condo/Townhous
e
134.32 27.2658 1.6114 0.0000 67.5497
Hotel 164.25 33.3413 1.9704 0.0000 82.6016
Strip Mall 15.75 3.1971 0.1889 0.0000 7.9207
Total 120.6112 7.1279 0.0000 298.8090
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 33 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 34 of 34
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
City Park 2.00 Acre 2.00 87,120.00 0
Hotel 300.00 Room 10.00 435,600.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 608.00 Dwelling Unit 38.00 608,000.00 1739
Condo/Townhouse 292.00 Dwelling Unit 18.25 292,000.00 835
Strip Mall 15.00 1000sqft 0.34 15,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
13
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.6 40
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric
2019Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
556.22 0.022CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.005N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only
San Diego Air Basin, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 1 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
Project Characteristics - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report pp. 50
Land Use -
Construction Phase - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report, pp. 55
Grading - import and total acres graded per the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo, pp. 52
Vehicle Trips - construction only
Woodstoves - construction only
Energy Use -
Architectural Coating - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report, pp. 51
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 250.00 0.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 50.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 261.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,110.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 130.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 131.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/3/2023 12/31/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/5/2022 12/31/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/4/2018 12/31/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/18/2022 12/31/2018
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/19/2022 1/1/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/5/2018 1/1/2018
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/2/2017 7/2/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/6/2022 7/1/2018
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 2 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
tblFireplaces NumberGas 334.40 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 160.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 212.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 102.20 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 325.00 120.50
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 570,000.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.022
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 720.49 556.22
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.005
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 30.40 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 14.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 30.40 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 3 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 14.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 4 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
2017 11.7454 257.8986 77.7519 0.5099 17.3628 4.1451 21.5079 6.1780 3.8528 10.0308 0.0000 54,875.24
61
54,875.24
61
6.2446 0.0000 55,031.36
01
2018 9.0477 67.8726 69.1608 0.1809 8.5321 2.6981 11.2302 2.2913 2.5193 4.8106 0.0000 18,360.09
92
18,360.09
92
2.0635 0.0000 18,411.686
3
2019 44.5550 48.5942 57.2594 0.1721 9.8383 1.6386 11.4769 2.6378 1.5498 4.1875 0.0000 17,422.02
25
17,422.02
25
1.3663 0.0000 17,456.17
94
Maximum 44.5550 257.8986 77.7519 0.5099 17.3628 4.1451 21.5079 6.1780 3.8528 10.0308 0.0000 54,875.24
61
54,875.24
61
6.2446 0.0000 55,031.36
01
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
2017 11.7454 257.8986 77.7519 0.5099 17.3628 4.1451 21.5079 6.1780 3.8528 10.0308 0.0000 54,875.24
61
54,875.24
61
6.2446 0.0000 55,031.36
01
2018 9.0477 67.8726 69.1608 0.1809 8.5321 2.6981 11.2302 2.2913 2.5193 4.8106 0.0000 18,360.09
92
18,360.09
92
2.0635 0.0000 18,411.68
63
2019 44.5550 48.5942 57.2594 0.1721 9.8383 1.6386 11.4769 2.6378 1.5498 4.1875 0.0000 17,422.02
25
17,422.02
25
1.3663 0.0000 17,456.17
94
Maximum 44.5550 257.8986 77.7519 0.5099 17.3628 4.1451 21.5079 6.1780 3.8528 10.0308 0.0000 54,875.24
61
54,875.24
61
6.2446 0.0000 55,031.36
01
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 5 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 6 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Energy 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 42.8480 10.4866 81.5804 0.0627 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 11,893.41
58
11,893.41
58
0.3568 0.2156 11,966.58
31
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 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Energy 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 42.8480 10.4866 81.5804 0.0627 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 11,893.41
58
11,893.41
58
0.3568 0.2156 11,966.58
31
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 7 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 Grading Grading 7/2/2017 12/31/2017 5 130
2 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2018 12/31/2019 5 522
3 Paving Paving 7/1/2018 12/31/2018 5 131
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2019 12/31/2019 5 261
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: 1,822,500; Residential Outdoor: 607,500; Non-Residential Indoor: 675,900; Non-Residential Outdoor: 225,300; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 120.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 8 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 71,250.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 872.00 184.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 174.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 9 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.2 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.6212 0.0000 7.6212 3.5097 0.0000 3.5097 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 3.0727 3.0727 2.8269 2.8269 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
9
Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 7.6212 3.0727 10.6939 3.5097 2.8269 6.3366 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
9
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 5.9031 189.8897 38.1973 0.4460 9.5773 1.0712 10.6485 2.6248 1.0248 3.6496 48,345.73
73
48,345.73
73
4.2937 48,453.07
85
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 0.0940 0.0693 0.7720 1.8600e-
003
0.1643 1.2100e-
003
0.1655 0.0436 1.1200e-
003
0.0447 184.6225 184.6225 6.8500e-
003
184.7937
Total 5.9971 189.9590 38.9693 0.4478 9.7416 1.0724 10.8140 2.6683 1.0259 3.6943 48,530.35
98
48,530.35
98
4.3005 48,637.87
22
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 10 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.2 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.6212 0.0000 7.6212 3.5097 0.0000 3.5097 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 3.0727 3.0727 2.8269 2.8269 0.0000 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
8
Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 7.6212 3.0727 10.6939 3.5097 2.8269 6.3366 0.0000 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 5.9031 189.8897 38.1973 0.4460 9.5773 1.0712 10.6485 2.6248 1.0248 3.6496 48,345.73
73
48,345.73
73
4.2937 48,453.07
85
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 0.0940 0.0693 0.7720 1.8600e-
003
0.1643 1.2100e-
003
0.1655 0.0436 1.1200e-
003
0.0447 184.6225 184.6225 6.8500e-
003
184.7937
Total 5.9971 189.9590 38.9693 0.4478 9.7416 1.0724 10.8140 2.6683 1.0259 3.6943 48,530.35
98
48,530.35
98
4.3005 48,637.87
22
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 11 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.3 Building Construction - 2018
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 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.9489 24.2427 6.4196 0.0513 1.2456 0.1896 1.4352 0.3586 0.1814 0.5400 5,486.693
5
5,486.693
5
0.4349 5,497.565
0
Worker 3.7117 2.6730 29.8509 0.0786 7.1633 0.0516 7.2149 1.9000 0.0476 1.9476 7,823.798
2
7,823.798
2
0.2677 7,830.491
0
Total 4.6606 26.9157 36.2705 0.1299 8.4089 0.2412 8.6501 2.2586 0.2289 2.4876 13,310.49
17
13,310.49
17
0.7026 13,328.05
60
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 12 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.3 Building Construction - 2018
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 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.9489 24.2427 6.4196 0.0513 1.2456 0.1896 1.4352 0.3586 0.1814 0.5400 5,486.693
5
5,486.693
5
0.4349 5,497.565
0
Worker 3.7117 2.6730 29.8509 0.0786 7.1633 0.0516 7.2149 1.9000 0.0476 1.9476 7,823.798
2
7,823.798
2
0.2677 7,830.491
0
Total 4.6606 26.9157 36.2705 0.1299 8.4089 0.2412 8.6501 2.2586 0.2289 2.4876 13,310.49
17
13,310.49
17
0.7026 13,328.05
60
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 13 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.3 Building Construction - 2019
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 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.8469 22.8137 5.8898 0.0508 1.2456 0.1587 1.4043 0.3586 0.1518 0.5104 5,446.706
1
5,446.706
1
0.4205 5,457.219
0
Worker 3.4239 2.3895 26.9807 0.0762 7.1633 0.0511 7.2143 1.9000 0.0471 1.9471 7,588.140
8
7,588.140
8
0.2423 7,594.198
5
Total 4.2708 25.2032 32.8705 0.1270 8.4089 0.2098 8.6187 2.2586 0.1989 2.4575 13,034.84
69
13,034.84
69
0.6628 13,051.41
75
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 14 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.3 Building Construction - 2019
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 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.8469 22.8137 5.8898 0.0508 1.2456 0.1587 1.4043 0.3586 0.1518 0.5104 5,446.706
1
5,446.706
1
0.4205 5,457.219
0
Worker 3.4239 2.3895 26.9807 0.0762 7.1633 0.0511 7.2143 1.9000 0.0471 1.9471 7,588.140
8
7,588.140
8
0.2423 7,594.198
5
Total 4.2708 25.2032 32.8705 0.1270 8.4089 0.2098 8.6187 2.2586 0.1989 2.4575 13,034.84
69
13,034.84
69
0.6628 13,051.41
75
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 15 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.4 Paving - 2018
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 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.9432
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.943
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.0639 0.0460 0.5135 1.3500e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 134.5837 134.5837 4.6100e-
003
134.6988
Total 0.0639 0.0460 0.5135 1.3500e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 134.5837 134.5837 4.6100e-
003
134.6988
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 16 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.4 Paving - 2018
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 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.943
2
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.943
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.0639 0.0460 0.5135 1.3500e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 134.5837 134.5837 4.6100e-
003
134.6988
Total 0.0639 0.0460 0.5135 1.3500e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 134.5837 134.5837 4.6100e-
003
134.6988
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 17 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2019
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 36.9735 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Total 37.2399 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.6832 0.4768 5.3838 0.0152 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,514.147
4
1,514.147
4
0.0484 1,515.356
1
Total 0.6832 0.4768 5.3838 0.0152 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,514.147
4
1,514.147
4
0.0484 1,515.356
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 18 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2019
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 36.9735 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Total 37.2399 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.6832 0.4768 5.3838 0.0152 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,514.147
4
1,514.147
4
0.0484 1,515.356
1
Total 0.6832 0.4768 5.3838 0.0152 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,514.147
4
1,514.147
4
0.0484 1,515.356
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 19 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 20 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
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 Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
City Park 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Condo/Townhouse 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Hotel 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Strip Mall 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 21 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
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 Low
Rise
18698.9 0.2017 1.7232 0.7333 0.0110 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 2,199.870
4
2,199.870
4
0.0422 0.0403 2,212.943
1
City Park 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
Condo/Townhous
e
11506.3 0.1241 1.0604 0.4512 6.7700e-
003
0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 1,353.680
0
1,353.680
0
0.0260 0.0248 1,361.724
2
Hotel 69660.2 0.7512 6.8294 5.7367 0.0410 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 8,195.317
3
8,195.317
3
0.1571 0.1503 8,244.018
0
Strip Mall 91.6438 9.9000e-
004
8.9800e-
003
7.5500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
10.7816 10.7816 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
10.8457
Total 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.64
94
11,759.64
94
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.53
11
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 22 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
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 Low
Rise
18.6989 0.2017 1.7232 0.7333 0.0110 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 2,199.870
4
2,199.870
4
0.0422 0.0403 2,212.943
1
City Park 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
Condo/Townhous
e
11.5063 0.1241 1.0604 0.4512 6.7700e-
003
0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 1,353.680
0
1,353.680
0
0.0260 0.0248 1,361.724
2
Hotel 69.6602 0.7512 6.8294 5.7367 0.0410 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 8,195.317
3
8,195.317
3
0.1571 0.1503 8,244.018
0
Strip Mall 0.0916438 9.9000e-
004
8.9800e-
003
7.5500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
10.7816 10.7816 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
10.8457
Total 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.64
94
11,759.64
94
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.53
11
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 23 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Unmitigated 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
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
10.5754 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
28.9073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.2873 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 137.0520
Total 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 24 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
10.5754 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
28.9073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.2873 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 137.0520
Total 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
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: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 25 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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: 6/12/2019 11:17 AMPage 26 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
City Park 2.00 Acre 2.00 87,120.00 0
Hotel 300.00 Room 10.00 435,600.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 608.00 Dwelling Unit 38.00 608,000.00 1739
Condo/Townhouse 292.00 Dwelling Unit 18.25 292,000.00 835
Strip Mall 15.00 1000sqft 0.34 15,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
13
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.6 40
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric
2019Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
556.22 0.022CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.005N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only
San Diego Air Basin, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 1 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
Project Characteristics - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report pp. 50
Land Use -
Construction Phase - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report, pp. 55
Grading - import and total acres graded per the 2017 AQ/GHG Memo, pp. 52
Vehicle Trips - construction only
Woodstoves - construction only
Energy Use -
Architectural Coating - per the 2017 AQ/GHG Report, pp. 51
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 250.00 0.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 50.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 261.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,110.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 130.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 131.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/3/2023 12/31/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/5/2022 12/31/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/4/2018 12/31/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/18/2022 12/31/2018
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/19/2022 1/1/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/5/2018 1/1/2018
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/2/2017 7/2/2017
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/6/2022 7/1/2018
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 2 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
tblFireplaces NumberGas 334.40 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 160.60 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 212.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 102.20 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 325.00 120.50
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 570,000.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.022
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 720.49 556.22
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.005
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 30.40 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 14.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 30.40 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 3 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 14.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 4 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
2017 11.9122 260.1841 80.6137 0.5026 17.3628 4.1647 21.5275 6.1780 3.8715 10.0496 0.0000 54,092.46
14
54,092.46
14
6.4100 0.0000 54,252.71
25
2018 9.5771 68.2486 68.2826 0.1748 8.5321 2.7012 11.2334 2.2913 2.5224 4.8136 0.0000 17,735.30
89
17,735.30
89
2.0781 0.0000 17,787.26
07
2019 45.1294 48.9654 56.1197 0.1652 9.8383 1.6414 11.4797 2.6378 1.5524 4.1902 0.0000 16,726.35
07
16,726.35
07
1.3782 0.0000 16,760.80
49
Maximum 45.1294 260.1841 80.6137 0.5026 17.3628 4.1647 21.5275 6.1780 3.8715 10.0496 0.0000 54,092.46
14
54,092.46
14
6.4100 0.0000 54,252.71
25
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
2017 11.9122 260.1841 80.6137 0.5026 17.3628 4.1647 21.5275 6.1780 3.8715 10.0496 0.0000 54,092.46
14
54,092.46
14
6.4100 0.0000 54,252.71
25
2018 9.5771 68.2486 68.2826 0.1748 8.5321 2.7012 11.2334 2.2913 2.5224 4.8136 0.0000 17,735.30
89
17,735.30
89
2.0781 0.0000 17,787.26
07
2019 45.1294 48.9654 56.1197 0.1652 9.8383 1.6414 11.4797 2.6378 1.5524 4.1902 0.0000 16,726.35
07
16,726.35
07
1.3782 0.0000 16,760.80
49
Maximum 45.1294 260.1841 80.6137 0.5026 17.3628 4.1647 21.5275 6.1780 3.8715 10.0496 0.0000 54,092.46
14
54,092.46
14
6.4100 0.0000 54,252.71
25
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 5 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 6 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Energy 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 42.8480 10.4866 81.5804 0.0627 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 11,893.41
58
11,893.41
58
0.3568 0.2156 11,966.58
31
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 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Energy 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 42.8480 10.4866 81.5804 0.0627 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 1.1538 1.1538 0.0000 11,893.41
58
11,893.41
58
0.3568 0.2156 11,966.58
31
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 7 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 Grading Grading 7/2/2017 12/31/2017 5 130
2 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2018 12/31/2019 5 522
3 Paving Paving 7/1/2018 12/31/2018 5 131
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2019 12/31/2019 5 261
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: 1,822,500; Residential Outdoor: 607,500; Non-Residential Indoor: 675,900; Non-Residential Outdoor: 225,300; Striped
Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 120.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 8 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 8 20.00 0.00 71,250.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 872.00 184.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 174.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 9 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.2 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.6212 0.0000 7.6212 3.5097 0.0000 3.5097 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 3.0727 3.0727 2.8269 2.8269 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
9
Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 7.6212 3.0727 10.6939 3.5097 2.8269 6.3366 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
9
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 6.0578 192.1667 41.0945 0.4389 9.5773 1.0907 10.6681 2.6248 1.0435 3.6683 47,574.23
14
47,574.23
14
4.4594 47,685.71
75
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 0.1061 0.0779 0.7366 1.7400e-
003
0.1643 1.2100e-
003
0.1655 0.0436 1.1200e-
003
0.0447 173.3437 173.3437 6.5400e-
003
173.5071
Total 6.1639 192.2445 41.8311 0.4406 9.7416 1.0920 10.8336 2.6683 1.0447 3.7130 47,747.57
51
47,747.57
51
4.4660 47,859.22
46
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 10 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.2 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.6212 0.0000 7.6212 3.5097 0.0000 3.5097 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 3.0727 3.0727 2.8269 2.8269 0.0000 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
8
Total 5.7483 67.9396 38.7826 0.0620 7.6212 3.0727 10.6939 3.5097 2.8269 6.3366 0.0000 6,344.886
3
6,344.886
3
1.9441 6,393.487
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 6.0578 192.1667 41.0945 0.4389 9.5773 1.0907 10.6681 2.6248 1.0435 3.6683 47,574.23
14
47,574.23
14
4.4594 47,685.71
75
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 0.1061 0.0779 0.7366 1.7400e-
003
0.1643 1.2100e-
003
0.1655 0.0436 1.1200e-
003
0.0447 173.3437 173.3437 6.5400e-
003
173.5071
Total 6.1639 192.2445 41.8311 0.4406 9.7416 1.0920 10.8336 2.6683 1.0447 3.7130 47,747.57
51
47,747.57
51
4.4660 47,859.22
46
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 11 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.3 Building Construction - 2018
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 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.9890 24.2840 7.1026 0.0500 1.2456 0.1928 1.4384 0.3586 0.1844 0.5430 5,348.842
1
5,348.842
1
0.4628 5,360.413
2
Worker 4.1928 3.0020 28.3162 0.0738 7.1633 0.0516 7.2149 1.9000 0.0476 1.9476 7,345.093
9
7,345.093
9
0.2545 7,351.457
4
Total 5.1818 27.2860 35.4187 0.1238 8.4089 0.2443 8.6532 2.2586 0.2320 2.4906 12,693.93
60
12,693.93
60
0.7174 12,711.87
06
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 12 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.3 Building Construction - 2018
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 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935
1
2,620.935
1
0.6421 2,636.988
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.9890 24.2840 7.1026 0.0500 1.2456 0.1928 1.4384 0.3586 0.1844 0.5430 5,348.842
1
5,348.842
1
0.4628 5,360.413
2
Worker 4.1928 3.0020 28.3162 0.0738 7.1633 0.0516 7.2149 1.9000 0.0476 1.9476 7,345.093
9
7,345.093
9
0.2545 7,351.457
4
Total 5.1818 27.2860 35.4187 0.1238 8.4089 0.2443 8.6532 2.2586 0.2320 2.4906 12,693.93
60
12,693.93
60
0.7174 12,711.87
06
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 13 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.3 Building Construction - 2019
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 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.8833 22.8322 6.5302 0.0495 1.2456 0.1615 1.4071 0.3586 0.1545 0.5131 5,308.404
7
5,308.404
7
0.4474 5,319.588
4
Worker 3.8724 2.6836 25.4967 0.0715 7.1633 0.0511 7.2143 1.9000 0.0471 1.9471 7,123.487
9
7,123.487
9
0.2299 7,129.234
2
Total 4.7557 25.5157 32.0269 0.1211 8.4089 0.2126 8.6215 2.2586 0.2016 2.4602 12,431.89
26
12,431.89
26
0.6772 12,448.82
26
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 14 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.3 Building Construction - 2019
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 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580
2
2,591.580
2
0.6313 2,607.363
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.8833 22.8322 6.5302 0.0495 1.2456 0.1615 1.4071 0.3586 0.1545 0.5131 5,308.404
7
5,308.404
7
0.4474 5,319.588
4
Worker 3.8724 2.6836 25.4967 0.0715 7.1633 0.0511 7.2143 1.9000 0.0471 1.9471 7,123.487
9
7,123.487
9
0.2299 7,129.234
2
Total 4.7557 25.5157 32.0269 0.1211 8.4089 0.2126 8.6215 2.2586 0.2016 2.4602 12,431.89
26
12,431.89
26
0.6772 12,448.82
26
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 15 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.4 Paving - 2018
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 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.9432
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.943
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.0721 0.0516 0.4871 1.2700e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 126.3491 126.3491 4.3800e-
003
126.4586
Total 0.0721 0.0516 0.4871 1.2700e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 126.3491 126.3491 4.3800e-
003
126.4586
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 16 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.4 Paving - 2018
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 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.9432
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.6437 17.5209 14.7964 0.0228 0.9561 0.9561 0.8797 0.8797 0.0000 2,294.088
7
2,294.088
7
0.7142 2,311.943
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.0721 0.0516 0.4871 1.2700e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 126.3491 126.3491 4.3800e-
003
126.4586
Total 0.0721 0.0516 0.4871 1.2700e-
003
0.1232 8.9000e-
004
0.1241 0.0327 8.2000e-
004
0.0335 126.3491 126.3491 4.3800e-
003
126.4586
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 17 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2019
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 36.9735 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Total 37.2399 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.7727 0.5355 5.0877 0.0143 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,421.429
9
1,421.429
9
0.0459 1,422.576
6
Total 0.7727 0.5355 5.0877 0.0143 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,421.429
9
1,421.429
9
0.0459 1,422.576
6
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 18 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2019
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 36.9735 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Total 37.2399 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e-
003
0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
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 0.7727 0.5355 5.0877 0.0143 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,421.429
9
1,421.429
9
0.0459 1,422.576
6
Total 0.7727 0.5355 5.0877 0.0143 1.4294 0.0102 1.4396 0.3791 9.3900e-
003
0.3885 1,421.429
9
1,421.429
9
0.0459 1,422.576
6
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 19 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 0.00 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 20 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
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 Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 7.30 7.50 41.60 18.80 39.60 86 11 3
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
City Park 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Condo/Townhouse 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Hotel 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Strip Mall 0.581689 0.044135 0.186694 0.113515 0.018244 0.005600 0.015197 0.022573 0.001888 0.002088 0.006279 0.000742 0.001357
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 21 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.649
4
11,759.649
4
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.531
1
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 Low
Rise
18698.9 0.2017 1.7232 0.7333 0.0110 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 2,199.870
4
2,199.870
4
0.0422 0.0403 2,212.943
1
City Park 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
Condo/Townhous
e
11506.3 0.1241 1.0604 0.4512 6.7700e-
003
0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 1,353.680
0
1,353.680
0
0.0260 0.0248 1,361.724
2
Hotel 69660.2 0.7512 6.8294 5.7367 0.0410 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 8,195.317
3
8,195.317
3
0.1571 0.1503 8,244.018
0
Strip Mall 91.6438 9.9000e-
004
8.9800e-
003
7.5500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
10.7816 10.7816 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
10.8457
Total 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.64
94
11,759.64
94
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.53
11
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 22 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
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 Low
Rise
18.6989 0.2017 1.7232 0.7333 0.0110 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 0.1393 2,199.870
4
2,199.870
4
0.0422 0.0403 2,212.943
1
City Park 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
Condo/Townhous
e
11.5063 0.1241 1.0604 0.4512 6.7700e-
003
0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 0.0857 1,353.680
0
1,353.680
0
0.0260 0.0248 1,361.724
2
Hotel 69.6602 0.7512 6.8294 5.7367 0.0410 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 0.5190 8,195.317
3
8,195.317
3
0.1571 0.1503 8,244.018
0
Strip Mall 0.0916438 9.9000e-
004
8.9800e-
003
7.5500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
10.7816 10.7816 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
10.8457
Total 1.0780 9.6220 6.9288 0.0588 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 0.7448 11,759.64
94
11,759.64
94
0.2254 0.2156 11,829.53
11
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 23 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Unmitigated 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
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
10.5754 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
28.9073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.2873 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 137.0520
Total 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 24 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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
10.5754 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
28.9073 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.2873 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 137.0520
Total 41.7700 0.8646 74.6516 3.9200e-
003
0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.4090 0.0000 133.7665 133.7665 0.1314 0.0000 137.0520
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: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 25 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, 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: 6/12/2019 11:18 AMPage 26 of 26
Planning Area 12 2019 Project Construction Only - San Diego Air Basin, Winter
otayconstruction
Start date and time 06/12/19 13:30:49
AERSCREEN 16216
OTAY RANCH, CONSTRUCTION
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.334E‐02 g/s 0.265E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 480.00 meters 1574.80 feet
Area Source Width: 422.00 meters 1384.51 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 270471
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
Page 1
otayconstruction
** 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
Page 2
otayconstruction
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION OFF
AERSCREEN output file:
otayconstruction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Page 3
otayconstruction
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 06/12/19 13:31:03
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Page 4
otayconstruction
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
Page 5
otayconstruction
******** 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
Page 6
otayconstruction
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 40
Page 7
otayconstruction
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 45
******** 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 ***
Page 8
otayconstruction
*****************************************************
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 ***
Page 9
otayconstruction
*****************************************************
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 ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
Page 10
otayconstruction
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 45
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
Page 11
otayconstruction
********************************************
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 ***
*****************************************************
Page 12
otayconstruction
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 ***
*****************************************************
Page 13
otayconstruction
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Page 14
otayconstruction
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 45
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
Page 15
otayconstruction
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
Page 16
otayconstruction
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 ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
Page 17
otayconstruction
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
Page 18
otayconstruction
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 45
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 06/12/19 13:31:58
REFINE started 06/12/19 13:31:58
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 06/12/19 13:32:04
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 06/12/19 13:32:04
Page 19
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
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
0.65511E+00 1.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67651E+00 25.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69770E+00 50.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71784E+00 75.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73705E+00 100.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75545E+00 125.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77154E+00 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78886E+00 175.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80559E+00 200.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82179E+00 225.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83748E+00 250.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85271E+00 275.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86712E+00 300.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.87349E+00 311.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77749E+00 325.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 1
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.62474E+00 350.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55984E+00 375.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51876E+00 400.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47469E+00 425.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43894E+00 450.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40891E+00 475.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38251E+00 500.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35972E+00 525.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33980E+00 549.99 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32216E+00 575.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30650E+00 600.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29233E+00 625.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27960E+00 650.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26792E+00 675.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25723E+00 700.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24743E+00 725.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 2
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.23831E+00 750.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22997E+00 775.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22221E+00 800.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21492E+00 825.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20807E+00 850.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20158E+00 875.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19549E+00 900.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18975E+00 925.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18429E+00 950.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17912E+00 975.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17419E+00 1000.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16954E+00 1025.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16512E+00 1050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16092E+00 1075.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15689E+00 1100.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15302E+00 1125.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 3
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.14934E+00 1150.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14582E+00 1175.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14244E+00 1200.00 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
0.13917E+00 1225.00 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
0.13604E+00 1249.99 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
0.13303E+00 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
0.13017E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12741E+00 1325.00 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
0.12475E+00 1350.00 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
0.12218E+00 1375.00 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
0.11969E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11729E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11497E+00 1450.00 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
0.11274E+00 1475.00 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
0.11057E+00 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
0.10848E+00 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
Page 4
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.10645E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10449E+00 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
0.10255E+00 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
0.10071E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98930E‐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
0.97185E‐01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95469E‐01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93830E‐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
0.92256E‐01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90733E‐01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89216E‐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
0.87728E‐01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86286E‐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
0.84914E‐01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83585E‐01 1900.00 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
0.82269E‐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
Page 5
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.80979E‐01 1950.00 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
0.79718E‐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
0.78506E‐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
0.77338E‐01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76202E‐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
0.75078E‐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
0.73980E‐01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72912E‐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
0.71858E‐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
0.70831E‐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
0.69842E‐01 2200.00 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
0.68876E‐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
0.67926E‐01 2250.00 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
0.67000E‐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
0.66096E‐01 2300.00 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
0.65215E‐01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 6
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.64348E‐01 2350.00 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
0.63507E‐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
0.62691E‐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
0.61881E‐01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61087E‐01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60311E‐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
0.59554E‐01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58814E‐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
0.58091E‐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
0.57384E‐01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56694E‐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
0.56010E‐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
0.55340E‐01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54685E‐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
0.54043E‐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
0.53416E‐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
Page 7
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.52801E‐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
0.52200E‐01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51611E‐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
0.51034E‐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
0.50469E‐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
0.49915E‐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
0.49365E‐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
0.48824E‐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
0.48294E‐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
0.47778E‐01 2975.00 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
0.47270E‐01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46771E‐01 3025.00 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
0.46282E‐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
0.45802E‐01 3075.00 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
0.45327E‐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
0.44860E‐01 3125.00 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
Page 8
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.44403E‐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
0.43956E‐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
0.43518E‐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
0.43087E‐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
0.42665E‐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
0.42250E‐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
0.41837E‐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
0.41431E‐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
0.41032E‐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
0.40640E‐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
0.40254E‐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
0.39876E‐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
0.39503E‐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
0.39137E‐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
0.38777E‐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
0.38423E‐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
Page 9
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.38074E‐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
0.37728E‐01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37385E‐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
0.37048E‐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
0.36716E‐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
0.36390E‐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
0.36071E‐01 3700.00 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
0.35758E‐01 3725.01 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
0.35449E‐01 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35145E‐01 3775.00 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
0.34846E‐01 3800.00 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
0.34549E‐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
0.34256E‐01 3850.00 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
0.33968E‐01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33684E‐01 3900.00 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
0.33403E‐01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 10
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.33126E‐01 3950.00 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
0.32854E‐01 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
0.32585E‐01 4000.00 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
0.32320E‐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
0.32059E‐01 4050.00 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
0.31802E‐01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31548E‐01 4100.00 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
0.31298E‐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
0.31053E‐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
0.30811E‐01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30573E‐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
0.30338E‐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
0.30106E‐01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29878E‐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
0.29652E‐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
0.29427E‐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
Page 11
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.29205E‐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
0.28986E‐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
0.28770E‐01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28556E‐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
0.28346E‐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
0.28138E‐01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27933E‐01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27731E‐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
0.27532E‐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
0.27334E‐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
0.27137E‐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
0.26943E‐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
0.26750E‐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
0.26561E‐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
0.26373E‐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
0.26188E‐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
Page 12
otayconstruction_max_conc_distance
0.26006E‐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
0.25826E‐01 4775.00 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
0.25649E‐01 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
0.25474E‐01 4825.00 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
0.25301E‐01 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
0.25130E‐01 4875.00 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
0.24961E‐01 4900.00 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
0.24795E‐01 4925.00 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
0.24631E‐01 4950.00 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
0.24468E‐01 4975.00 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
0.24307E‐01 5000.00 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
Page 13
OtayRanch_Operation
Start date and time 06/04/19 16:30:08
AERSCREEN 16216
Otay Ranch, Operation
Otay Ranch, Operation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.851E‐02 g/s 0.675E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 480.00 meters 1574.80 feet
Area Source Width: 422.00 meters 1384.51 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 270471
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Page 1
OtayRanch_Operation
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
Page 2
OtayRanch_Operation
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:
OtayRanch_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
Page 3
OtayRanch_Operation
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 06/04/19 16:31:32
********************************************
Page 4
OtayRanch_Operation
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
Page 5
OtayRanch_Operation
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
Page 6
OtayRanch_Operation
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
Page 7
OtayRanch_Operation
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 45
******** 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
Page 8
OtayRanch_Operation
******** 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
Page 9
OtayRanch_Operation
******** 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 ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
Page 10
OtayRanch_Operation
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 45
Page 11
OtayRanch_Operation
******** 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 ***
Page 12
OtayRanch_Operation
*****************************************************
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 ***
Page 13
OtayRanch_Operation
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
Page 14
OtayRanch_Operation
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 45
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Page 15
OtayRanch_Operation
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 ***
*****************************************************
Page 16
OtayRanch_Operation
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 ***
*****************************************************
Page 17
OtayRanch_Operation
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 8
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 35
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 9
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 40
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Page 18
OtayRanch_Operation
Processing wind flow sector 10
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 45
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 06/04/19 16:32:37
REFINE started 06/04/19 16:32:37
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 06/04/19 16:32:43
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Page 19
OtayRanch_Operation
Ending date and time 06/04/19 16:32:45
Page 20
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
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
0.16710E+01 1.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17256E+01 25.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17796E+01 50.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18310E+01 75.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18800E+01 100.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19269E+01 125.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19680E+01 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20122E+01 175.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20548E+01 200.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20961E+01 225.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21362E+01 250.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21750E+01 275.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22118E+01 300.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.22280E+01 311.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19831E+01 325.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 1
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.15935E+01 350.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14280E+01 375.01 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13232E+01 400.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12108E+01 425.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11196E+01 450.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10430E+01 475.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.97566E+00 500.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.91753E+00 525.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86673E+00 549.99 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82173E+00 575.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78180E+00 600.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74565E+00 625.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71317E+00 650.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68338E+00 675.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65612E+00 700.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63113E+00 725.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 2
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.60786E+00 750.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58658E+00 775.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56679E+00 800.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54819E+00 825.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53073E+00 850.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51418E+00 875.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49865E+00 900.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48401E+00 925.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47008E+00 950.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45687E+00 975.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44431E+00 1000.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43245E+00 1025.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42116E+00 1050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41046E+00 1075.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40019E+00 1100.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39031E+00 1125.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 3
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.38093E+00 1150.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37194E+00 1175.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36332E+00 1200.00 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
0.35499E+00 1225.00 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
0.34700E+00 1249.99 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
0.33933E+00 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
0.33203E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32497E+00 1325.00 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
0.31819E+00 1350.00 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
0.31163E+00 1375.00 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
0.30530E+00 1400.00 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
0.29918E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29326E+00 1450.00 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
0.28758E+00 1475.00 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
0.28204E+00 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
0.27669E+00 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
Page 4
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.27151E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26652E+00 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
0.26159E+00 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
0.25687E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25234E+00 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
0.24789E+00 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24351E+00 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23933E+00 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
0.23532E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23143E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22756E+00 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
0.22377E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22009E+00 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
0.21659E+00 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21320E+00 1900.00 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
0.20984E+00 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
Page 5
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.20655E+00 1950.00 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
0.20334E+00 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
0.20024E+00 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
0.19726E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19437E+00 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
0.19150E+00 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
0.18870E+00 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18598E+00 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
0.18329E+00 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
0.18067E+00 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
0.17815E+00 2200.00 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
0.17568E+00 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
0.17326E+00 2250.00 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
0.17090E+00 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
0.16859E+00 2300.00 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
0.16634E+00 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 6
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.16413E+00 2350.00 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
0.16199E+00 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
0.15991E+00 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
0.15784E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15581E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15384E+00 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
0.15191E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15002E+00 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
0.14817E+00 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
0.14637E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14461E+00 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
0.14287E+00 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
0.14116E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13948E+00 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
0.13785E+00 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
0.13625E+00 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
Page 7
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.13468E+00 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
0.13315E+00 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13164E+00 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
0.13017E+00 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
0.12873E+00 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
0.12732E+00 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
0.12592E+00 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
0.12454E+00 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
0.12318E+00 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
0.12187E+00 2975.00 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
0.12057E+00 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11930E+00 3025.00 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
0.11805E+00 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
0.11683E+00 3075.00 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
0.11561E+00 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
0.11443E+00 3125.00 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
Page 8
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.11326E+00 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
0.11212E+00 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
0.11100E+00 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
0.10990E+00 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
0.10882E+00 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
0.10777E+00 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
0.10671E+00 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
0.10568E+00 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
0.10466E+00 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
0.10366E+00 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
0.10268E+00 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
0.10171E+00 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
0.10076E+00 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
0.99827E‐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
0.98908E‐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
0.98005E‐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
Page 9
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.97116E‐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
0.96232E‐01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95358E‐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
0.94499E‐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
0.93653E‐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
0.92820E‐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
0.92006E‐01 3700.00 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
0.91206E‐01 3725.01 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
0.90420E‐01 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89644E‐01 3775.00 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
0.88881E‐01 3800.00 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
0.88124E‐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
0.87378E‐01 3850.00 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
0.86643E‐01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85918E‐01 3900.00 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
0.85202E‐01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Page 10
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.84495E‐01 3950.00 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
0.83800E‐01 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
0.83114E‐01 4000.00 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
0.82438E‐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
0.81772E‐01 4050.00 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
0.81116E‐01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80469E‐01 4100.00 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
0.79833E‐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
0.79208E‐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
0.78591E‐01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77983E‐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
0.77383E‐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
0.76792E‐01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76209E‐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
0.75632E‐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
0.75058E‐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
Page 11
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.74492E‐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
0.73934E‐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
0.73383E‐01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72839E‐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
0.72302E‐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
0.71773E‐01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71250E‐01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70734E‐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
0.70224E‐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
0.69721E‐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
0.69219E‐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
0.68722E‐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
0.68232E‐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
0.67749E‐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
0.67271E‐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
0.66799E‐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
Page 12
OtayRanch_Operation_max_conc_distance
0.66333E‐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
0.65873E‐01 4775.00 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
0.65422E‐01 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
0.64975E‐01 4825.00 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
0.64535E‐01 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
0.64099E‐01 4875.00 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
0.63669E‐01 4900.00 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
0.63245E‐01 4925.00 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
0.62825E‐01 4950.00 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
0.62411E‐01 4975.00 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
0.61999E‐01 5000.00 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
Page 13
EXHIBIT B
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
Davis, CA 95616
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910 16 June 2019
RE: Otay Ranch Planning Area 12
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to comment on the Third Addendum (City of Chula Vista 2019) to the Otay
Ranch Planning Area 12 FEIR (City of Chula Vista 2003), which I understand would add
300 dwelling units to a previously planned 600 units for 900 dwelling units of about
1,665,000 square feet and 15,000 square feet of commercial space on 132.9 acres of
land. Based on typical window to wall ratios that have become popular in current
residential development projects since City of Chula Vista (2003), I estimate the
project’s façades would support at least 26,400 m2 of glass windows, which would pose
collision hazards to birds. I write to comment on bird-window collisions and other
project impacts on wildlife that were not only unaddressed by City of Chula Vista
(2003), but which would increase in magnitude with the changes to the project
described in the Third Addendum (City of Chula Vista 2019).
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D.
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked
for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range
Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection,
habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and
activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading
species. I perform research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric
distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers
on special-status species issues, including “Using the best scientific data for endangered
species conservation” (Smallwood et al. 1999), and “Suggested standards for science
applied to conservation issues” (Smallwood et al. 2001). I served as Chair of the
Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a
member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a
part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of
wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as
well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental
Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-three years,
including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.
2
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Of the 63 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife known to occur in the project area,
26 have been assigned special status indicative of greater conservation concern since
2003 (Table 1). For example, tricolored blackbird was listed as Threatened under the
California Endangered Species Act in 2017, well after the 2003 FEIR was certified. The
Third Addendum (City of Chula Vista 2019) does not address potential project impacts
or mitigation related to tricolored blackbird or any of the 26 special -status species that
our state or federal governments have recognized as in need of greater conservation
concern since 2003. A project=specific EIR is needed to address potential project
impacts on these species. To do that effectively, detection surveys are needed for each of
the special-status species.
Many of the species with upgraded conservation concern since the 2003 FEIR are also
the types of birds that typically collide with windows of houses and building façades
during migration or dispersal, including passerines such as oak titmouse, yellow
warbler, and Allen’s hummingbird (Table 1). However, many of the other species in
Table 1 are also known to be vulnerable to window collisions, which was an
anthropogenic impact that was undergoing early stages of research at the time of the
2003 FEIR. Much has been learned about bird-window collisions since 2003, and we
know enough now to predict collision-caused fatality rates (see below).
Another new development since the 2003 FEIR there has been the proliferation of
structural glass in building construction and an increase in window-to-wall ratios.
Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of
glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer
buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a
worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016.
Increasing window to wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple
reasons, including a growing demand for ‘daylighting.’ The increased use of glass in
new structures also increases the bird-window collision hazard of developments since
the time of the 2003 FEIR. A project-specific EIR is needed to address the project’s
contribution to bird-window collisions and how to mitigate the impacts.
Another anthropogenic impact that was in early stages of research prior to 2003 was
wildlife-automobile collisions on roadways. In fact, it was not until 2003 when the first
major work on wildlife-automobile collisions was available (Foreman et al. 2003).
Much has been learned about road mortality since 2003. Below I will summarize some
of what has been learned. A project-specific EIR is needed to address the project’s
contribution to wildlife-automobile collisions and how to mitigate the impacts.
3
Table 1. Special-status wildlife species likely to occur in the project area based on
habitat associations and eBird reports, and whether listing status changed since 2003,
where ‘Yes +’ indicates increased special status and ‘Yes -’ indicates a down-listing in
status.
Common name, Species name
Status1
eBird
post
Status
change
since
2003
Coastal rosy boa, Lichanura trivirgata FSC [1993] Yes +
San Diego ringneck snake, Diadophis punctatus similis CNDDB Yes +
San Diego Banded gecko, Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC Yes +
South coast garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis SSC No
American white pelican, Pelicanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby No
Double-crested cormorant, Phalacrocorax auritus TWL Nearby Yes +
Long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus BCC, TWL Nearby Yes -
Whimbrel, Numenius phaeopus BCC Nearby No
Osprey, Pandion haliaetus CDFW 3503.5, TWL Nearby Yes -
Bald eagle, Pandion haliaetus BGEPA, BCC, CE, CFP Nearby No
Golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Yes -
Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis CDFW 3503.5, TWL Nearby Yes +
Red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Swainson’s hawk, Buteo swainsoni CT, BCC, CDFW
3503.5
Nearby No
Red-shouldered hawk, Buteo lineatus CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
White-tailed kite, Elanus leucurus CFP, TWL, CDFW
3503.5
Nearby Yes +
Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus SSC3, CDFW 3503.5 Nearby Yes -
Sharp-shinned hawk, Accipiter striatus CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Cooper’s hawk, Accipiter cooperi TWL, CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
American kestrel, Falco sparverius CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Merlin, Falco columbarius TWL, CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BCC, CDFW
3503.5
Nearby No
Prairie falcon, Falco mexicanus CDFW 3503.5, TWL Nearby Yes -
California gull, Larus californicus TWL Nearby Yes -
Burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2 Nearby No
Barn owl, Tyto alba CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Great-horned owl, Bubo virginianus CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Western screech-owl, Megascops kennicotti CDFW 3503.5 Nearby No
Vaux’s swift, Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Yes +
Costa’s hummingbird, Calypte costae BCC Nearby Yes +
Allen’s hummingbird, Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby Yes +
Nuttall’s woodpecker, Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby Yes +
Willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby No
Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby Yes +
Vermilion flycatcher, Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby Yes +
4
Common name, Species name
Status1
eBird
post
Status
change
since
2003
Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby Yes +
San Diego cactus wren, Campylorhynchs
brunneicapillus sandiegensis
BCC, SSC1 Nearby Yes +
Clark’s marsh wren, Cistothorus palustris clarkae SSC2 Nearby Yes +
Least Bell’s vireo, Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE Nearby No
Oak titmouse, Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby Yes +
California gnatcatcher, Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC Nearby No
Yellow warbler, Setophaga petechia BCC, SSC2 Nearby Yes +
Yellow-breasted chat, Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby Yes -
Common yellowthroat, Geothlypis trichas BCC, SSC3 Nearby Yes +
Summer tanager, Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby Yes +
Oregon vesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Yes +
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow,
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
TWL Nearby Yes +
Belding’s savannah sparrow, Passerculus
sandwichensis beldingi
CE Nearby No
Grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby Yes +
Tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC Nearby Yes +
Yellow-headed blackbird, Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Region Yes +
Lawrence’s goldfinch, Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby No
Pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus SSC No
Townsend’s western big-eared bat, Plecotus t.
townsendii
SSC No
Western red bat, Lasiurus blossevillii SSC No
Western yellow bat, Lasiurus xanthinus SSC Yes +
Small-footed myotis, Myotis cililabrum WBWG No
Long-eared myotis, Myotis evotis WBWG No
Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes WBWG No
Long-legged myotis, Myotis volans WBWG No
Yuma myotis, Myotis yumanensis WBWG No
Western mastiff bat, Eumops perotis SSC No
Pocketed free‐tailed bat, Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC Yes +
1 Listed as FE or FT = federal endangered or threatened, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of
Conservation Concern, CE or CT = California endangered or threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected
(CDFG Code 4700), CDFW 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey),
SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively , and TWL
= Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate
or high priority.
5
WINDOW COLLISIONS
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are
differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and
other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266
bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass
walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn
birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not
attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,235
birds were likely killed over the 50 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a
relatively small building façade (Figure 1). Accounting for the proportion of fatalities
not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 50 years would have
been about 12,705. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two
college campus buildings.
Figure 1. A walkway connecting two buildings at
Washington State University where one of the
earliest studies of bird collision mortality found 85
bird fatalities per year prior to marking windows
(254 annual deaths adjusted for the proportion not
found). Given that the window markers have long
since disappeared, this walkway has likely killed at
least 12,705 birds since 1968, and continues to kill
birds. Notice that the transparent glass on both
sides of the walkway gives the impression of
unimpeded airspace that can be navigated safely by
birds familiar with flying between tree branches.
Also note the reflected images of trees, which can
mislead birds into seeing safe perch sites. Further
note the distances of ornamental trees, which allow
birds taking off from those trees to reach full speed
upon arrival at the windows.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or
human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often
attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion
bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988
million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013)
estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively.
However, these estimates and their interpretation warrant examination because they
were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, and fatality
monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per
building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings
6
estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by
fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also,
the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his
estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird-
window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated
more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper
end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the
estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to
windows has the same level of impact.
Homes with birdfeeders are associated with higher rates of window collisions than are
homes without birdfeeders (Kummer and Bayne 2015, Kummer et al. 2016a), so the
developed area might pose even greater hazard to birds if it includes numerous
birdfeeders. Another factor potentially biasing national or North American estimates
low was revealed by Bracey et al.’s (2016) finding that trained fatality searchers found
2.6× the number of fatalities found by homeowners on the days when both trained
searchers and homeowners searched around homes. The difference in carcass detection
was 30.4-fold when involving carcasses volitionally placed by Bracey et al. (2016) in
blind detection trials. This much larger difference in trial carcass detection rates likely
resulted because their placements did not include the sounds that typically alert
homeowners to actual window collisions, but this explanation also raises the question of
how often homeowner participants with such studies miss detecting window-caused
fatalities because they did not hear the collisions.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird-
window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were
underway. Loss et al. (2014) were able to incorporate many more fatality rates based on
scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include.
However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which
in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et
al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand,
such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality
metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can
include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was
based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were
limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-
laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included
adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how
and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al.
(2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty
mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source,
their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable
to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius
around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my
experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of
7
bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows,
especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher
detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover
or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on
anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby
preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates
for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence
rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As
mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species
within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State
University (no adjustments attempted). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among
13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week,
Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year,
and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species – 24 birds/building/year.
Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York
City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the
high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009)
monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory
periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010)
surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird
fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within
only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48
day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university
campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31
windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762
days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of
6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of
these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-
deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts
likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my
prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction
Predicting the number of bird collisions at a new project is challenging because the
study of window collisions remains in its early stages. Researchers have yet to agree on
a collision rate metric. Some have reported findings as collisions per building per year
and some as collisions per building per day. Some have reported findings as collisions
per m2 of window. The problem with the temporal factor in the collision rate metrics
has been monitoring time spans varying from a few days to 10 years, and even in the
case of the 10-year span, monitoring was largely restricted to spring and fall migration
seasons. Short-term monitoring during one or two seasons of the year cannot represent
a ‘year,’ but monitoring has rarely spanned a full year. Using ‘buildings’ in the metric
treats buildings as all the same size, when we know they are not. Using square meters of
glass in the metric treats glass as the only barrier upon which birds collide against a
8
building’s façade, when we know it is not. It also treats all glass as equal, even though
we know that collision risk varies by type of glass as well as multiple factors related to
contextual settings.
Without the benefit of more advanced understanding of window collision factors, my
prediction of project impacts will be uncertain. Klem’s (1990) often-cited national
estimate of avian collision rate relied on an assumed average collision rate of 1 to 10
birds per building per year, but studies since then have all reported higher rates of
collisions 12 to 352 birds per building per year. Because the more recent studies were
likely performed at buildings known or suspected to cause many collisions, collision
rates from them could be biased high. By the time of these comments I had reviewed
and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 181 buildings and façades for which
bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and
Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010,
Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016,
Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Schneider et al. 2018).
These study results averaged 0.077 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.04-
0.11). This rate can be multiplied against the projected area of structural glass in the
proposed new project.
Neither the 2003 FEIR nor the 3 Addenda provide details of building design anywhere
near sufficient for measuring the extent of structural glass to be used. To estimate the
extent of structural glass in the project, I started with estimating the square footage of
the project. I assumed that the proposed 300 homes will average 3,000 square feet per
home and multi-family residences will average 1,250 square feet for a total square
footage of the residential portion of the project at 900,000 + 750,000 = 1,650,000
square feet. To convert square footage to window extent, I conservatively relied on the
typical home’s window-to-square footage ratio of 30 years ago, which was 28 m2 of glass
windows per 1,750-square-foot residential unit. Applying this ratio to the 1,650,000
square-feet of dwelling units alone would add 26,400 m2 of structural glass to the
project without considering the potential for even more glass in the façades of modern
homes nor the glass in railings and fences. With my conservative glass estimate, I
predict the project would cause of 6,033 bird-window collision fatalities per year
(95% CI: 1,056-2,904). The 50-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would
be 101,640 bird deaths (95% CI: 52,800-145,200), which would continue until the
homes are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. The impact
can be predicted, and because it can be predicted, it can also be mitigated.
As mentioned earlier, the accuracy of my window collision predictions depend on factors
known or hypothesized to affect window collision rates. However, from the national
average collision rate, I used all the variation in collision rates that was available and
which resulted from a wide range in structure height, type of glass, indoor and outdoor
landscaping, interior light management, window to wall ratio, and structural context of
the façades. This variation contributed to a robust bird-window collision rate
represented by a wide 95% confidence interval. According to the confidence interval,
which again was based on the wide range of conditions in the underlying data, the
proposed project built as designed at 100 locations would be predicted to kill between
9
1,056 and 2,904 birds per year at 95 of those 100 locations, leaving the other 5 locations
to kill birds at rates either lower or higher than this range. Even at the low end of the
interval, the death toll would be excessive, amounting to 52,800 bird deaths over 50
years. This impact would be significant, especially considering that the predicted
fatality rate can be prevented by implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Below
I will discuss hypothesized bird-window collision factors, and I will recommend
mitigation measures.
Bird-Window Collision Factors
Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature. Following this list
are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience.
(1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other
flights
(2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor
plants
(3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace
(4) Black hole or passage effect
(5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other
reflective surface
(6) Size of window
(7) Type of glass
(8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations
(9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground)
(10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure
(11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment
(12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious
surface vs vegetation
(13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building
(14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants
(15) Relative abundance
(16) Season of the year
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior
(18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack
(19) Aggressive social interactions
(1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure’s collision risk can be
attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington
Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality
count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and
Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows,
although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is
that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although the
impacts of a glass-sided building would likely be much greater.
10
(2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors
contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in
windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of
the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior
vegetation.
(3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors
contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows
on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace,
vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb
and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the
lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem
et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation
associated positively with collisions.
(4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the
bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The
black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge
that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites.
The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions
give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be
nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of
both of these factors.
(5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al.
(2013), and Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) reported increased collision fatalities at
buildings with larger reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of
windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between
fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed.
(6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on
large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows.
(7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the
type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the
types of glass in buildings.
(8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated
positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the
extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an
80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program.
However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such
as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building.
(9) Height of structure.—I found little if any hypothesis-testing related to building
height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of
11
high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller
buildings?
(10) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not
convincingly. Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would
require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some
portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations
cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be
testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different
orientations would help.
(11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of
structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little
attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific
literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision
rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in
slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington
State University.
(12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have
associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et
al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016a).
(13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have
sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation
near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016a, Ocampo-
Peñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship
between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what
probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the
vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from
that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the façade to result
in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m
away, birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at
the windows.
(14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P <
0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds
counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental
installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold.
(15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local
density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been
measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a
negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings.
(16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during
spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day
12
carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were
considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words,
the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying
seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions
into the glass façades of the project’s building would likely be concentrated in fall and
spring migration periods.
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds
were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and
waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by
higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with
buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al.
(2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible
to collision than resident birds.
(18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of
window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing
birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern
mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide
with the project’s windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk,
Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk.
(19) Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of
aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal
account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have
witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the
birds hitting a window.
Glass Fencing and Railing
Nothing in the 2003 FEIR nor the 2019 Third Addendum describes the use of railings
and fencing, so it is unclear whether these features would be built as part of the project.
It has become very popular in San Diego County to use structural glass in fencing and
railing, but it needs to be understood that glass walls of these types pose severe collision
risk to birds. Two studies of window-walls detached from non-glass structures resulted
in an average 0.69 fatalities per m2 of glass per year, or 10 times the fatality rate of glass
windows on buildings or homes. At this rate, a 4-foot high glass fence would be
predicted to kill 84 birds per 100 meters of fence per year, or about 6 times the average
bird-window collision rate among single-family homes. City of Chula Vista should
clarify whether the project would utilize structural glass in fences and railings, and if so,
then how the excessive impacts would be mitigated.
Window Collision Solutions
Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great
opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing
structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new
13
structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts.
However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most
importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs
and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through
experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality
monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project.
Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the
literature.
Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and
nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the
prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where
certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures
prior to construction, because post-construction options will be limited, likely more
expensive, and probably less effective.
(1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts
(1A) Marking windows
(1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation
(1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation
(1D) Managing nocturnal lighting
(1A) Marking windows.—Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on
windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after
placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al.
(2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with
windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird
collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al.
(2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities
82% and 95%. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested
experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects
(Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).
Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows
of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I
moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US
Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my
windows during the 8 years hence. On 8 December 2018, I photographed a ruby-
crowned kinglet pulling up short of my window (Figure 2), right at one of my installed
markers. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations.
14
Figure 2. Ruby-crowned kinglet
puts on the brakes in front of a decal
I applied to mark windows of my
home, 8 December 2018. This
window killed birds prior to
marking, but I have found no
window collision victims since
marking the windows. Windows
with attractive built-in marking are
commercially available.
(2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts
(2A) Deciding on location of structure
(2B) Deciding on façade and orientation
(2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows
(2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades
(2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants
(2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs
(3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts
(3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns
(3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed.
Guidelines on Building Design
If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available guidelines on
building design intended to minimize collision hazards to birds. The American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles,
shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions,
such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during
migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San
Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based
on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al.
2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents
provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual
examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines
are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.
For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific
monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be
avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation
should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended
in the available guidelines remain of uncertain effectiveness, and even if these measures
15
are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess
effectiveness and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for
fatalities.
ROAD TRAFFIC MORTALITY
City of Chula Vista (2019:9) predicts the project would generate 7,681 daily traffic trips,
which would total 2.8 million traffic trips per year. These trips would crush and kill
wildlife (Shilling et al. 2017), including special-status species of wildlife, at locations well
beyond the project’s footprint. They would kill animals attempting to cross roads many
miles distant from the project, and the animals killed would include members of special -
status species listed in Table 1, as well as special-status species not listed in Table 1.
These impacts are not analyzed in the FEIR nor the Third Addendum, nor are the
impacts from the additional traffic that would come with the larger project analyzed by
City of Chula Vista (2003, 2019).
Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile,
amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found
to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Increased use of existing
roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). In Canada, 3,562
birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and
the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per
year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be
more intense than nationally.
In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses
of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches
along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn
et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to
the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the
proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the
estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate
of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In
terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al.
(2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or
29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian
estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic on roads in and around
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 would similarly result in intense local impacts on wildlife.
Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, so can be predicted. Causal factors include
types of roadway, human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as
well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014,
Bartonička et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation
(Bartonička et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by
vehicle traffic within 0.1 miles of stream crossings >40 times other than expected (K. S.
Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). These factors also point the way toward
mitigation measures, which should be formulated in a project-specific EIR.
16
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Third Addendum provides no cumulative impacts analysis related to bird-window
collisions or road mortality. A project-specific EIR is needed to analyze the cumulative
impacts of the incremental increase in the project and its impacts – the addition of 300
dwelling units and their accompanying glass windows and generated traffic.
MITIGATION
Neither the FEIR nor the Third Addendum provides mitigation for bird-window
collision or road mortality of wildlife, neither for the original project nor for the added
dwelling units.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Detection Surveys
Detection surveys are needed to inform a project decision, as well as to inform
preconstruction take-avoidance surveys and the formulation of appropriate mitigation
measures. For example, to comply with the CDFW (2012) burrowing owl breeding-
season survey guidelines, at least four surveys are needed during the breeding season,
each separated by 3 weeks and according to specific schedule attributes. Protocol-level
detection surveys have been developed for most special-status species of wildlife, some
of which overlap to various degrees in methodology. Without detection surveys, absence
determinations lack foundation and the FEIR lacks the critical information the public
and decision-makers need.
At the time of the 2003 FEIR, the CDFW (2012) burrowing owl survey guidelines did
not yet exist. The 2012 guidelines include higher standards than typical of burrowing
owl surveys in 2003. They emphasize detection surveys, which are needed to inform
mitigation measures and the preconstruction surveys. Given that burrowing owls were
detected on site prior to the 2003 FEIR, detection surveys to the standards of CDFW
(2012) are warranted.
Detection surveys have also been developed since 2003 for the multiple species listed in
Table 1. A project-specific EIR needs to be prepared and it needs to be founded on the
detection survey guidelines that have been developed since 2003.
Window Collisions
Transparency and reflectance increase collision risk, but there are materials available to
minimize the effects of transparency and reflectance, including the glass itself.
Landscaping around homes and retail space can also affect collision risk, but risks can
be minimized by carefully planning the landscaping. Interior lighting also increases risk
to nocturnal migrants, but the effects of interior lighting is readily mitigated by
minimizing use of lights as well as the lighting of any interior landscaping. I
recommend consulting available guidelines on minimizing impacts to wildlife caused by
17
windows. For example, the American Bird Conservancy produced an excellent set of
guidelines recommending: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type
of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties
to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off
lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco
(San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines,
based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff
et al. 2007). Based on these guidelines, I recommend that City of Chula Vista adopt its
own ordinance on bird-safe home and building designs, and that the proposed project
be subject to the City’s ordinance.
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities
Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife
rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to
these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by window collisions,
collisions with cars, and predation by house cats. But the project’s impacts can also be
offset by funding the treatment of injuries to animals caused by other agents.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird
collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Bartonička, T., R. Andrášik, M. Dula, J. Sedoník, and M. Bíl. 2018. Identification of
local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife
Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21467
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle
collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751
/ACE-00604-080202.
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal,
taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban
university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird-
window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The
Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
18
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report
avian and bat monitoring project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal–vehicle collisions in
Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch
Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12. SCH #
1989010154.
City of Chula Vista. 2019. Third Addendum to EIR: Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12.
Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species:
urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20.
DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3.
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal
of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello,
California.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in
Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding
season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460.
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density
and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of
avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of
Field Ornithology 83:203-211.
19
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins.
2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window
collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in
Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a
west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes
from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of
bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight
Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or
prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual
signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology
125:406–411.
Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009.
Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an
urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134.
Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road
mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15.
Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window
collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI
10.5751/ACE-00787-100206.
Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to
identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1
20
Kunz, T. H., and L. F. Lumsden. 2003. Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. Pages
3–89 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, Eds., Bat ecology. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the
United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality
on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada
of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation
and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife
movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
Martinez, California.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle .
2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The
Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building
collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess
bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic
Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada,
UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird-
window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog-
2015-0057
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian
density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
21
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San
Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the
road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring
surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the
Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.4562
Shilling, F., D. Waetjen, and K. Harrold. 2017. Impact of wildlife-vehicle conflict on
California drivers and animals. https://roadecology.ucdavis.edu/files/
content/projects/CROS-CHIPs_Hotspots_2017_Report_fin.pdf
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American
Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for
endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C.
Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to
conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
36:40-49.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the
Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation
Biology 1:1–19.
Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update
on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37.
1
Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone ( Married, father of two.
Cell (
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human
industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;
• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful
ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
477 professional publications, including:
81 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
370 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
87 public presentations of research results at meetings
Reviewed many professional papers and reports
Testified in 4 court cases.
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers
representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate
the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor,
Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The
Smallwood CV
2
five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC
reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting
services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and
produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research
to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous
waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat,
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western
burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore;
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity,
Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field
Imperial Beach.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical
monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods
used by other researchers.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by
wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind
energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S.,
Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind
turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife
Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts
and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an
example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife
and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United
Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind
energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife
Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Smallwood CV
3
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange
Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of
Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and
H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman,
A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild
Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716-
1718.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American
wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl
Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson
Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.
Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal
trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife
Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a
wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915-
943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed
Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor
111:247-254.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in
Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of
Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and
Smallwood CV
4
Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71:2781-2791.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl
mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513-
1524.
Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal
activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in
Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.
Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:
Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.
Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and
integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.
Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.),
Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285-
298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania
(eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of
Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.
Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density
estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and
K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions
of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.
Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro-
ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental
Planning and Management 44:345-355.
Smallwood CV
5
Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont
Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power
Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)
density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.
Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and
real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered
species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.
Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of
pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae)
density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in
clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of
the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis)
under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.
Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat
Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.
Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting
hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.
Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian
Smallwood CV
6
carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.
Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare
County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of
Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
Meeting 33:88-97.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants
by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist
17:289-295.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and
management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.
Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and
quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for
terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.
Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial,
mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.
Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in
agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.
Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an
agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors
in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White-
tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.
Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press,
London.
Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across
an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in
forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis
Smallwood CV
7
concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation
69:251-259.
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist
39:67-72.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.
Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual
mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern
Naturalist 38:65-67.
Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.
Biological Conservation 62:149-159.
Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of California, Davis.
EXHIBIT C
June 17, 2019
Mr. Doug Chermak
Lozeau Drury
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: Third Addendum To EIR Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12
P19028
Dear Mr. Chermak:
At your request, I have reviewed the Third Addendum (hereinafter the
“Addendum”) to the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 Final Environmental
Impact Report (SCH 19890101543) (hereinafter the “FEIR”) Project (the
“Project”) in the City of Chula Vista (the “City”). My review is specific to the
Traffic and Circulation sections of those documents
My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic
Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering
practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and
performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections
of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) including residential and mixed use complexes. My
professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are summarized below.
Background
The City is attempting to approve the proposed Project as an Addendum to an
FEIR completed in 2003. Such addenda are only allowed under CEQA for
Mr. Doug Chermak
June 17, 2019
Page 2
“minor modifications” to previously approved projects. However, the changes
proposed under this and prior addenda are not minor modifications.
In addition, under CEQA, addenda are not allowed if there are changed
circumstances since the prior EIR or if there is new information that was not
known in 2003. And in fact, there is a large scale change in the planned State
Highway system directly serving the Project area that invalidates the
transportation conclusions of the FEIR. We discuss this below.
The FEIR Analyzed the Projects Long Term Impacts On the State Highway
System Under the Assumption that State Route 125 Would Be Developed to
a Massive Number of Lanes By Year 2020. It Is Now 2019, SR 125 Remains
Just 2 Lanes in Each Direction and the Regional Transportation Plan Makes
Clear That There Will Be No Lane Additions For the Next 30 Years
The FEIR at page 5.3-29 makes clear that long term transportation impacts for
the Project were analyzed under the assumption that State Route 125 (“SR 125”)
would be developed to 10 lanes (5 in each direction) north of Olympic Parkway
and to 8 lanes south of Olympic Parkway. It is now 2019. SR 125 remains just 4
lanes (2 in each direction) and there is no sign of immanent widening. In fact, the
San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”), the regional transportation
planning agency’s current Regional Transportation Plan makes clear that SR 125
will not be widened until Year 2050 and then only to 8 lanes.1
Obviously, the FEIR was prepared under transportation system assumptions that
are no longer relevant to the current situation or this Addendum and the prior
addendums. There is a vast difference in the performance and capacity of a
freeway with four or five lanes in each direction versus one that has only two
lanes in each direction. Hence, a full new EIR transportation analysis must be
prepared under assumptions that reflect the current transportation reality of the
SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan with regard to SR 125.
Conclusion
Given the foregoing, I conclude that use of an Addendum for environmental
clearance of this Project is inappropriate. A new EIR clearly must be performed
under assumptions that the SR 125 highway will not be widened in the next thirty
years.
1 See SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan, Appendix A, 2050 RTP Projects, Costs, and Phasing, Table
A-3 at page A-20 and Table A-4 at page A-24.
Mr. Doug Chermak
June 17, 2019
Page 3
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
Attachment 1
Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
Mr. Doug Chermak
June 17, 2019
Page 4
Mr. Doug Chermak
June 17, 2019
Page 5
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface
bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus
development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal
terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit
Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of
three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco
International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and
San Diego Lindberg.
Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco;
and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical
centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse
and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts
throughout western United States.
Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special
event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking
feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking .
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop
techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.),
Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential
traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo
County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and
experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on
neighborhood traffic control.
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on
bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene,
Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective
retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984.
Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979.
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control
Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research
Record 570, 1976.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with
Donald Appleyard, 1979.
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: June 18, 2019
To: Doug Chermak
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Otay Ranch FC-02, Chula Visa, CA
(IEE File Reference: P-4262)
Pages: 17
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
2
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route
of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate
ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL
concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL
concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3,
and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2007).
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
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 that are 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., 2018), 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 25 µg/m3 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 30%
lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime
cancer risk is still 125 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood
products, which is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold
(OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to this project, the buildings at Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 – Chula Vista, CA include multi-family
residential buildings, hotels, and commercial spaces.
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per
day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer
risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and
furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
4
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM
materials, and be 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 25 µg/m3.
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year
lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 500 µg/day for continuous exposure in the
residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 125 per million, which is more than
12 times the San Diego Air Pollution Control District CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million
(SDAPCD, 2007). For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk
will be proportionally less but still substantially over the SDAPCD CEQA cancer risk of
10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the SDAPCD CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million).
This project will also include hotels and commercial buildings, and the employees in
these buildings are expected to experience work-day exposures (e.g. 40 hours per week,
50 weeks per year). This exposure for employees is anticipated to result in significant
cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials
and furnishing commonly found in hotels and commercial buildings.
Because these hotel and commercial buildings 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 25 µg/m3.
Assuming that the employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the
formaldehyde dose per work-day in the hotel and commercial buildings is 167 µg/day.
Assuming that the employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years
5
(start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70 year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose
is 73.6 µg/day.
This is 1.84 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 18.4 per million, which exceeds the SDAPCD 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.
While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built
with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that
indoor formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels,
residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this
project and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted
prior to completion of the environmental review.
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 the specific building materials/furnishings
selected for the building exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design
analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the
City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that
contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that
alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations
and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment.
6
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
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 emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed
8
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).
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
9
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.
It is important to note that at the time that the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EDAW Inc., 2003) was written in 2003 for the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12 – Chula Vista, CA, it was
unknown if using composite wood products that meet the most recent CARB ATCM
Phase 2 requirements, would achieve indoor concentrations of formaldehyde with cancer
10
risks that meet the SDAPCD CEQA requirements. This is also true for the FEIR
Addendum (EDAW Inc., 2015) and the FEIR Second Addendum (EDAW Inc., 2016)
Since the Final Environmental Impact Report was written in 2003, the first FEIR
addendum was written in 2015, and the second FEIR addendum was written in 2016, new
information has become available in the Chan study which was presented at Indoor Air
2018 in July of 2018, that shows that using composite wood products that meet CARB
ATCM Phase 2 requirements does not achieve indoor concentrations of formaldehyde
with cancer risks that meet the SDAPCD CEQA requirements. Composite wood products
that are NAF or ULEF are required to achieve acceptable cancer risks.
Further, we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how much composite
materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on
the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California
Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”,
(CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (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 air 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 ach, with a
range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates
11
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 Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area
12 – Chula Vista, CA is surrounded by roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g. I-25,
Olympic Parkway, and Eastlake Parkway). As a result of the outdoor traffic noise, this has
been determined to be a sound impacted site according to the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EDAW Inc., 2003), and the first, second, and third addenda (EDAW Inc., 2015,
2016, and 2019) with outdoor noise levels exceeding 65 dBA Ldn. On page 8 of the third,
and last addendum to date, (EDAW Inc., 2019) the report states. “Prior to the approval of
site development plans, the applicant shall submit a supplemental noise analysis
acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building demonstrating that interior noise
levels would not exceed 45 dB CNEL.”
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, in addition to incorporating high STC
windows into the buildings, the current project will require the need for mechanical supply
of outdoor air ventilation air 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. This
development is located in San Diego County, which is a State 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
12
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 PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor
concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average
concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in
all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon
indoor quality:
- indoor formaldehyde concentrations
- outdoor air ventilation
- PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations
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 or
ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Other projects such as the
AC by Marriott Hotel – West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main
Street, Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements
stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination
13
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 to “speculate” on what and how
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood
materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct
using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off
gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous
mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the
greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the
system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is
entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor
airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced
outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a
manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the
mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the
system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5
removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
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.
14
References
AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers’
International Union of North America Local 652.
Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano,
Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 652.
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines.
www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume
1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento,
CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.
15
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., and Singer, B. 2018. Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes
with Mechanical Ventilation, Proceedings of Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia, PA.
EDAW Inc. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Freeway
Commercial Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12, EIR-02-04,
SCH#1989010154.
EDAW Inc. 2015. Addendum to EIR, Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12.
EDAW Inc. 2016. Second Addendum to EIR, Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12.
EDAW Inc. 2019. Third Addendum to EIR, Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Planning Area 12.
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.
16
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 USA.
Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of
Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. 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.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2007. County of San Diego
Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements –
Air Quality.
17
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4