The URL can be used to link to this page

31 Susana Barrios From:Brian Flynn <brian@lozeaudrury.com> Sent:Thursday, To:Public Comment; City Clerk; Thomas Gorham Cc:Rebecca Davis; Madeline Dawson Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Public Comment- Pacific Resort Plaza Project (DEV 2019-00161)_Feb 27 City Council Meeting Attachments:2024.02.22 SAFER Comment to Anaheim City Council_Pacific Resort Plaza MND (DEV 2019-00161)_Feb 27 CC Meeting.pdf You don't often get email from brian@lozeaudrury.com. Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. To the Anaheim City Council, City Clerk Bass, and City Planner Gorham, Please find attached a comment submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) regarding the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Pacific Resort Plaza Project (DEV 2019-00161) scheduled to be heard at the City Council's February 27, 2024 meeting. Acknowledgment of receipt of this email and comment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Brian B. Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 836-4200 (510) 836-4205 (fax) brian@lozeaudrury.com -- 1 VIA EMAIL February 22, 2024 Ashleigh E. Aitken, Mayor Norma Campos Kurtz, Mayor Pro Tem Jose Diaz Carlos A. Leon Natalie Rubalcava Stephen Faessel Natalie Meeks Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 publiccomment@anaheim.net Theresa Bass, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard 2nd Floor, Room 217 Anaheim, CA 92805 cityclerk@anaheim.net Thomas Gorham, City Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 tgorham@anaheim.net Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project (DEV 2019-00161) Dear Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, and Honorable City Councilmembers: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) prepared for the Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project (DEV 2019-00161) (“Project”). The Project is scheduled to be heard at the City Council’s February 27, 2024 meeting. SAFER previously submitted a comment to the Planning Commission on November 29, 2023, which raised concerns that the MND was improper under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) due to potentially significant impacts to human health and greenhouse gas emissions as well as inadequate analyses of the Project’s impacts on air quality, hazardous materials, and energy use. SAFER’s November 29, 2023 comment to the Planning Commission is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein. The purpose of this comment is to address the MND’s inadequate analysis of the Project’s noise impacts. SAFER retained noise expert Silas Bensing of Wilson Ihrig to review the MND. Mr. Bensing found several deficiencies in the MND’s noise analysis and concluded that the MND failed to identify multiple potentially significant impacts. Mr. Bensing’s written comment and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 February 22, 2024 Page 2 Due to the Project’s potentially significant noise impacts identified by Mr. Bensing and the failure of the MND to support its noise conclusions with substantial evidence, as well as the additional reasons raised in SAFER’s previous November 29, 2023 comment, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from further consideration of this Project until an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is prepared and circulated in accordance with CEQA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 1.57-acre Project site is located at 125 East Ball Road (APN 234-161-04 and 234- 161-26) and is currently occupied by a vacant 10,530 sf two-story commercial building, auxiliary storage sheds, and surface parking/vehicle storage space. The Project proposes the demolition of the existing structures and the development of a hotel, fast food restaurant, and associated parking. The proposed hotel is a 120-room La Quinta Inn and Suites, with five stories (55 feet) and approximately 67,715 square feet. The stand-alone fast-food restaurant would consist of a single story (sixteen feet tall) and would include drive-thru service. Hotel parking will be provided in two four-story puzzle-lift enclosed parking structures (three stories above ground and one story below ground) totaling 3,310 square feet with 72 spaces, seven standard spaces, eight EV spaces, four ADA accessible spaces. Restaurant parking will include seven standard spaces and one ADA accessible space. Project construction would be divided into two phases with the fast-food restaurant building and site area being constructed during Phase One, and the hotel building and site area to be constructed during Phase Two. Phase One will also include the demolition of the existing commercial building. LEGAL STANDARD FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS 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, 319-20.) “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. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 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. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 February 22, 2024 Page 3 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, supra, 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 Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2)].) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.) An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under this “fair argument” standard, 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, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; 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, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: 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 SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 February 22, 2024 Page 4 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. 273-74.) 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, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) DISCUSSION I. The MND inadequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant noise impacts. Noise expert Silas Bensing of the consulting firm Wilson Ihrig reviewed the MND’s analysis of the Project’s noise impacts. Mr. Bensing’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit 2. As discussed below, Mr. Bensing concludes that the MND failed to properly analyze and mitigate the Project’s noise impacts and, as a result, the Project may cause significant impacts. A. The MND fails to establish a proper baseline for noise impacts. An adequate analysis of a project’s impacts under CEQA begins with establishing a proper baseline against which the project’s impacts can be compared. Here, the MND fails to establish a proper noise baseline and, as a result, the MND’s analysis of noise impacts are not reliable. The MND’s baseline noise analysis was based on only four 20-minute measurements taken between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on a single day (February 15, 2023). (MND, p. 5-61; Appendix H pp. 2-9.) However, as noted by Mr. Bensing, “[n]o data is presented for nighttime conditions when ambient noise levels are lower and residents would be more sensitive to noise increases, and the data does not document variation in noise level that typically occur throughout a day.” (Ex. 2, p. 2.) The MND fails to explain how the measurements taken at “only 1% of the time on one particular day during mid-day hours” are representative of the actual baseline noise conditions at and around the Project site. (Id.) Because the baseline noise measurements are not indicative of the actual noise conditions at the Project site, the MND’s comparison of the Project’s noise impacts to the MND’s faulty baseline measurements do not constitute substantial evidence of the Project’s noise impacts. At the very least, the MND must be revised with an updated noise analysis utilizing a baseline that accurately reflects “the existing baseline conditions at all relevant times.” (Ex. 2, p. 2.) SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 February 22, 2024 Page 5 B. The MND fails to show that the Project’s noise impacts will be less than significant. As discussed below, Mr. Bensing found several inconsistencies in the MND’s noise analysis that undermine the MND’s conclusion that noise impacts will be less than significant. 1. The MND fails to account for the noise impacts of all construction equipment. To calculate the noise impacts of construction equipment for the Project, the MND relies on estimated noise levels for the “minimum required equipment present at site” provided by the U.S. EPA. (See Appendix H, p. 10.) However, the EPA actually provides two separate noise estimate categories: (1) “minimum required equipment present at site” (as utilized in the MND) and (2) “all pertinent equipment present at site” (which are 10-14 dBA higher that the “minimum required” values. (Ex. 2, pp. 2-3.) The MND provides no justification for why the “minimum required” values were used rather than the “all pertinent equipment” values. (Ex. 2, pp. 2-3.) If the City wants to rely on the analysis provided in the MND, then mitigation measures must be imposed that ensure that the Project will use on the “minimum required” equipment. Without such a mitigation measure, the MND conclusion that the Project’s noise impacts will be less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence in violation of CEQA. 2. There is a fair argument that construction of the Project will result in significant noise impacts. In order to conclude that the Project’s noise impacts will be less than significant, the MND compares the Project’s noise levels to the absolute noise threshold (80 dBA Leq over an 8- hour period) established by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”). (MND at p. 5-67.) However, as noted by Mr. Bensing, “[e]valuating the noise over an 8-hour period is not appropriate for an MND, since noise levels would be higher for shorter intervals, and this shorter-duration increase in ambient noise levels may be substantial and potentially significant.” (Ex. 2, p. 4.) Using the information from the MND, Mr. Bensing calculated the increase over existing ambient noise at the two distances from the nearest noise sensitive property boundary (80 feet away and 265 feet away). (Ex. 2, p. 4.) Mr. Bensing’s calculations are presented in the table below: SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 February 22, 2024 Page 6 The increased-over-existing noise levels shown in the table above are significant impacts that have not been mitigated in the MND. For ground clearing/demolition, the 22 dBA increase over ambient will be perceived as more than 4x louder than existing noise levels. (Id.) The 16-17 dBA increase for excavation and foundation construction will be perceived as 3x louder than existing noise levels. (Id.) As Mr. Bensing concludes, “[t]his is a substantial increase that would cause adverse community reaction and would be significant. (Id.) Because Mr. Bensing’s calculations above establish a fair argument that the Project may result in significant noise impacts, the City cannot rely on MND and must prepare an EIR for the Project. 3. The MND’s discussion of noise impacts is inconsistent with the information provided in the MND’s technical noise study. In Table 18 of the MND, the noise levels for the north residential receptor located 80 feet away are listed as 75, 70, 69, 66, and 66 (dBA Leq) for the five phases of construction. (MND, p. 5-67.) However, in the MND’s technical noise appendix, the noise levels for the north residential receptor located 80 feet away are reported as 80, 75, 74, 71, 71. It is likely that the appendix’s technical calculations are the correct calculations and, as a result, the MND has underestimated the Project’s noise impacts. For example, the 22 dBA increase discussed above in section I.B.2 would increase to 27 dBA, which is 6.5x louder than existing noise levels, indicating an even greater potentially significant impact requiring the preparation of an EIR. C. The MND’s analysis of the Project’s HVAC-related noise is inadequate. The MND claims that the Project’s mechanical HVAC equipment will be located at least 300 feet from the nearest neighboring residential uses. (MND, p. 5-63.) However, some of the Project’s hotel rooms will be only 80-100 feet from the nearest residences and, as Mr. Bensing explains, “that would be an unusually far distance to pipe conditioned air. (Ex. 2, p. 5.) SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 February 22, 2024 Page 7 Furthermore, the MND states that “HVAC units would ductless individual units that each serve 4 rooms.” (MND, p. 5-63.) Therefore, as Mr. Bensing concludes, “it seems implausible that the HVAC equipment will be 250 feet from the nearest residences.” (Ex. 2, p. 5.) Although the MND claims that the units would result in 60 dBA at 20 feet, the MND does not appear to have considered the noise impacts of multiple units operating at once, which will surely happen on hot nights. (Ex. 2, p. 5.) As a result, the MND’s conclusion that noise impacts will be less than significant cannot be relied upon. Similar to the construction noise impacts discussed above in Section I.B.2, the MND only discussed the absolute noise level generated by the HVAC units but failed to assess whether HVAC noise would result in a substantial increase over existing noise levels. (Ex. 2, p. 5.) According to the MND, the existing mid-day noise level at the northern property line was 45 dBA. (MND, p. 5-61.) Although the MND failed to take any measurements of ambient nighttime noise levels, nighttime noise levels are typically lower than mid-day, meaning that operational noise from the HVAC units would be more noticeable to nearby residents during the night. (Ex. 2, p 5.) Even assuming that nighttime and mid-day ambient noise levels were the same (45 dBA), the HVAC’s 60 dBA noise levels represent a 15 dBA increase, which would be perceived as more than 2x as loud as the baseline noise levels. (Id.) As Mr. Bensing concluded, “[t]his is a substantial increase that would cause adverse community reaction and would be significant.” (Id.) Therefore, the noise impacts of the Project’s HVAC units must be properly analyzed and mitigated in an EIR prior to approval of this Project. CONCLUSION As discussed in SAFER’s November 29, 2023 comment letter to the Planning Commission, SAFER’s experts established a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts related to emissions of diesel particulate matter and greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the MND failed to provide substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts to air quality, hazards, and energy. As discussed in this comment letter, the MND failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s noise impacts and, as a result, there is a fair argument that the Project’s construction- and HVAC-related noise impacts will be significant. For those reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from taking any action on this Project at this time and instead direct Planning staff to prepare an EIR prior to further consideration of the Project. Sincerely, Brian B. Flynn Lozeau Drury LLP EXHIBIT 1 VIA EMAIL November 29, 2023 Lucille Kring, Chairperson Grant Henninger, Vice Chairperson Jeanne Tran-Martin Michelle Lieberman LuisAndres Perez Christopher Walker Amelia Castro Anaheim Planning Commission 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 planningcommission@anaheim.net Thomas Gorham, City Planner Planning and Building Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 tgorham@anaheim.net Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project (DEV 2019-00161) Dear City of Anaheim Planning Commission: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) prepared for the Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project (DEV 2019-00161) (“Project”). The Project is tentatively scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission’s December 4, 2023 meeting. SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). SWAPE’s written comment and CVs are attached hereto as Exhibit A. As discussed below, there is a fair argument that the Project may result in significant impacts, including significant cancer risks to nearby residents due to emissions of diesel particulate matter. Furthermore, several of the MND’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. SAFER respectfully requests that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) prior to approval of the Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 1.57-acre Project site is located at 125 East Ball Road (APN 234-161-04 and 234- SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 2 161-26) and is currently occupied by a vacant 10,530 sf two-story commercial building, auxiliary storage sheds, and surface parking/vehicle storage space. The Project proposes the demolition of the existing structures and the development of a hotel, fast food restaurant, and associated parking. The proposed hotel is a 120-room La Quinta Inn and Suites, with five stories (55 feet) and approximately 67,715 square feet. The stand-alone fast -food restaurant would consist of a single story (sixteen feet tall) and would include drive- thru service. Hotel parking will be provided in two four-story puzzle-lift enclosed parking structures (three stories above ground and one story below ground) totaling 3,310 square feet with 72 spaces, seven standard spaces, eight EV spaces, four ADA accessible spaces. Restaurant parking will include seven standard spaces and one ADA accessible space. Project construction would be divided into two phases with the fast-food restaurant building and site area being constructed during Phase One, and the hotel building and site area to be constructed during Phase Two. Phase One will also include the demolition of the existing commercial building. LEGAL STANDARD FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS 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, 319-20.) “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. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 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. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); 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, supra, 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 Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 3 An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An MND instead of an EIR is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and . . . there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331 [quoting PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2)].) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.) An EIR must be prepared rather than an MND “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under this “fair argument” standard, 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, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; 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, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: 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. 273-74.) 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 SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 4 favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) DISCUSSION I.An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Health Impacts from Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter. Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., from SWAPE reviewed the Project’s impacts to human health due to emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). SWAPE concluded that the MND failed to identify a significant impact from emissions of DPM. Due to this fair argument that the Project may result in significant health impacts, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project. A.The MND failed to adequately analyze the Project’s health impacts from emissions of diesel particulate matter. The MND’s analysis of the cancer risk posed by emissions of DPM was inadequate. Although the MND compared the Project’s emissions to the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (“LSTs”) established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), the MND does not include a quantified health risk assessment (“HRA”) to measure the increased cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the Project. As noted by SWAPE, CEQA requires that that the MND “correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.” (Ex. A, p. 10.) However, such an analysis is not possible without a quantified HRA. Furthermore, the failure of the MND to provide a quantified HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). (Ex. A, p. 10-11.) OEHHA recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”). (Ex. A, p. 10.) Due to the Project’s 15-month construction schedule and its operation for the foreseeable future, a quantified HRA for construction and operation of the Project is necessary to ensure that the Project’s health risks are disclosed and compared to the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold for increased cancer risk. B.The Project will result in significant increased cancer risks from emissions of diesel particulate matter. SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts to human health from DPM during construction and operation of the Project using AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. (Ex. A, pp. 11-15.) According to the MND’s air quality modeling data, construction of the Project would result in 115.5 pounds of DPM SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 5 emissions and operation of the Project would result in an additional 40 pounds of DPM emissions per year. (Ex. A, pp. 11-12.) Using those values, SWAPE conducted their HRA to calculate the increased cancer risk resulting from those DPM emissions to the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor (“MEIR”) located approximately 50 meters downwind of the Project site. (Ex. A, p. 12.) The HRA also utilized age sensitivity factors in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and to assess the risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. (Ex. A, p. 13.) SWAPE’s HRA found that increased cancer risk to infants and children during construction and operation of the Project would be 120.0 in one million and 80.4 in one million, respectively. (Ex. A, pp. 14-15.) Additionally, the increased cancer risk for a 30-year residential lifetime would be 217 in one million. (Id.) Each of the above increased cancer risks exceed SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million and, thus, establishes a fair argument that the Project may result in significant, unmitigated impacts. (Ex. A, p. 15.) Due to this fair argument, CEQA requires that the City prepare an EIR, rather than an MND, prior to approval of the Project. II.An EIR is Required Due to a Fair Argument that the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. According to the MND’s analysis of the Project greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, the Project will generate 1,909 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (MND, p. 5-51 [Table 13].) The MND then claims that these GHG emissions are less than significant because they do not exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e/year significance threshold allegedly adopted by SCAQMD. (Id.) As an initial matter, the MND likely underestimates the Project’s GHG emissions (see ante Section III) and cannot be relied upon as an accurate estimate of the Project’s GHG emissions. But even more importantly, the 3,000 MT CO2e/year significance threshold utilized in the MND is woefully outdated and, using a more up-to-date threshold, the Project is likely to result in significant impacts. The 3,000 MT CO2e/year significance threshold was adopted in 2008 as an interim threshold in response to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (commonly known as “AB 32”), which required requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (Ex. A, p. 17.) Now that 2020 has come and gone, the 3,000 MT CO2e/year significance threshold “is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project.” (Id.) Instead, the SCAQMD threshold to reduce GHG emissions by a target date of 2035 should be employed, which is an efficiency threshold based on service population of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, where “service population” is the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the Project. (Id.) In other words, the Project’s annual GHG emissions must be divided by the service population and then compared to the 3.0 MT CO2e/year threshold. Here, the service population of the Project is the 26 jobs that the Project will provide (as a hotel, the Project does not have any residents). (MND, p. 5-70.) Dividing the Project’s 1,909 MT SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 6 CO2e/year of GHG emissions by the service population of 26 results in 73.4 MT CO2e/year, well in excess of the 3.0 MT CO2e/year threshold. This exceedance of SCAQMD’s threshold establishes a fair argument that the Project may result in significant GHG emission and, as a result, an EIR is required. III. The MND’s Air Quality Analysis Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. SWAPE found that the MND underestimated the Project’s emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. (Ex. A, pp. 4-9.) To estimate the Project’s emissions, the MND utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (“CalEEMod”). (Ex. A, p. 3.) CalEEMod relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors (Ex. A, p. 2.) CEQA requires that any changes to the default values must be justified by substantial evidence. (Id.) Typically, CalEEMod provides output files that provide the quantitative changes that were made to model’s default values. (Ex. A, p. 3.) However, the CalEEMod version utilized in the MND is a “soft release” and does not provide complete output files indicating the quantitative changes that were made to the default values. (Id.) Instead, the MND only provides a qualitative description of the changed default values, thereby hindering public review and comment. At the very least, an updated analysis should be prepared that provides all relevant output files. (Ex. A, pp. 3-4.) Notwithstanding the above, SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. (Ex. A, p. 4.) As a result, the MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be less than significant. (Id.) Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the MND’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the MND or otherwise unjustified: 1. Unsubstantiated changes to construction phase lengths (Ex. A, pp. 4-6.) 2. Unsubstantiated changes to off-road equipment input parameters (Ex. A, pp. 6-7.) 3. Unsubstantiated changes to architectural coating emission factors (Ex. A, pp. 7-8.) 4. Unsubstantiated changes to construction trips and VMT (Ex. A, pp. 8-9.) 5. Unsubstantiated changes to operational off-road fuel type (Ex. B, pp. 7-9.) As a result of these errors, the MND underestimates the Project’s construction and operational emissions and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 7 IV. The MND’s Hazards Analysis Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. The MND claims that the Project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant based solely upon review of regulatory databases and an online review of the Cortese list. (MND, p. 5-52.) The MND never mentions the fact that the previous use of the Project site was a motorsports dealership (Hahm Motorsports), which sold motorcycles, jet skis, ATVs, and generators.1 This past use of the Project site “may have resulted in the release of hazardous materials, including fuel and lubricants.” (Ex. A, p. 1.) In order to accurately assess the Project’s hazards, the MND should have contained a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”). (Ex. A, pp.1-2.) As SWAPE explains, The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in CEQA matters to identify and disclose hazardous materials issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards. (Id.) A Phase I ESA would assist the City in identifying any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”), which are “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.” (Ex. A, p. 2.) If any RECs are identified, a Phase II ESA would follow, which “includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.” (Id.) Without preparing a Phase I ESA, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project’s impacts would be less than significant. At the very least, the MND should be revised to include a Phase I ESA prior to approval of the Project. V. The MND inadequately analyzes the Project’s energy impacts. CEQA provides that all Projects must include measures “to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, 1 Google Maps Street View of Project site, https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8181752,- 117.9070051,3a,75y,2.37h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxeKJKqS_NTqWrKDTg7uSRw!2e0!7i16 384!8i8192?entry=ttu SAFER Comment Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project DEV 2019-00161 November 29, 2023 Page 8 natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.) Mere compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6) (“Title 24”) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 165 (League to Save Lake Tahoe); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13.) Even where an agency has concluded that a project’s impacts on energy resources would be less than significant, a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 166-67.) A lead agency’s failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a “prejudicial error.” (Id. at 168.) Despite CEQA’s requirement to consider all renewable energy options, the MND’s analysis of alternative energy merely relies on compliance with Title 24. (MND, pp. 5-32 to 5- 33.) Because mere compliance with Title 24 is insufficient to determine that energy impacts are less than significant, the MND’s energy analysis is inadequate and its conclusion that the Project’s energy impacts will be less than significant is unsupported. The MND also claims that the Project will “develop alternative energy (solar PV) [and] provide EV parking and charging infrastructure.” (MND, p. 5-34.) However, there is no indication of how much solar PV or EV parking will be provided by the Project or whether it is feasible to provide more of either. Furthermore, there is no indication that solar PV or EV parking will actually be required for the Project. Without more information about the solar PV or EV parking (and without an express requirement for both in the Project’s conditions of approval, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project’s energy impacts will be less than significant. The Project’s energy analysis should be updated to consider the implementation of all feasible renewable energy features in accordance with CEQA. CONCLUSION SAFER’s experts have established a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts related to emissions of DPM and GHGs. Furthermore, the MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts to air quality, hazards, and energy. For those reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City not rely on the MND but instead prepare and circulate an EIR prior to further consideration of the Project. Sincerely, Brian B. Flynn Lozeau Drury LLP EXHIBIT A 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com November 22, 2023 Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94618 Subject: Comments on the Pacific Resort Plaza Project Dear Mr. Flynn, We have reviewed the October 2023 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Pacific Resort Plaza Project (“Project”) located in the City of Anaheim (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 67,715-square-foot (“SF”) hotel, a 1,200-SF walkup/drive-thru fast-food restaurant, and 100 parking spaces on the 1.47-acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts Review of Google map images indicate the Project site was previously used as a motorcycle and personal watercraft dealer, a past use not disclosed in the IS/MND. Despite this past use, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has not been prepared for the Project site. The IS/MND states only that a computerized review of regulatory databases and an online review of the Cortese list was conducted to determine if hazardous materials sites were present in the Project vicinity (p. 5-52). Past use of the Project site as a motorsports dealer may have resulted in the release of hazardous materials, including fuel and lubricants. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in CEQA 2 matters to identify and disclose hazardous materials issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (“ASTM”).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substance and include: •A review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities; •An inspection; •Interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and •Recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards. Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public. A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to evaluate if RECs are present at the proposed Project site. If RECs are found, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil and groundwater. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including DTSC Soil Screening Levels 2, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with DTSC. Air Quality Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). 3 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output 1 https://www.astm.org/e1527-21.html 2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June2020-Revised-May2022A.pdf 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. 3 files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the selected values. According to the IS/MND, CalEEMod Version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate Project emissions (p. 5- 16). However, this poses a problem as the version of CalEEMod 2022.1 currently available is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files.4 Specifically, the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 64): However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s default values (see example excerpt below): The output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the IS/MND should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters.5 Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate reflection of the proposed Project. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air 4 “CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Soft Release.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2022, available at: https://caleemod.com/. 5 “Video Tutorials for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/tutorials. 4 quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod.6 Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions As previously discussed, the IS/MND relies on CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project’s air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete output files required to adequately evaluate model’s analysis (p. 5-16). Regardless, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data (“AQ & GHG Report”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As such, the Project’s construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “La Quinta v4” model includes changes to the default construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 64). As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 121): 6 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model. 5 The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.7 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Schedule provided by Applicant Phase 2 Paving represented by "Architectural Coating" Phase type as CalEEMod only allows for one paving phase. However, construction schedule and equipment inputs are accurate for paving as applicable inputs were changed from defaults based on data provided by the applicant” (Appendix A, pp. 64). Regarding the Project’s anticipated construction duration, the IS/MND states: “Phase One (walk-up/drive-thru fast food restaurant) includes the demolition of the existing 10,530 sf, two-story commercial building which is expected to occur over a two-week period beginning shortly after Project approval. Site preparation would occur for approximately one week, grading/excavation would occur approximately for one week, building construction would occur for approximately 16 weeks (four months), paving would occur for approximately one week, and architectural decoration and coating would occur approximately for three weeks (Refer to Exhibit 9, Demolition Plan). Demolition activities associated with Phase Two (hotel) would include the demolition of the existing wood carport and sheet metal garage which is expected to occur over a one-day period. Site preparation would occur for approximately one week, grading/excavation would occur approximately for one week, building construction would occur for approximately 15 months, paving would occur for approximately three weeks, and architectural decoration and coating would occur approximately for four weeks (one month)” (p. 3-2). However, the changes to the individual construction phase lengths remain unsubstantiated. While the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files demonstrate that the total length of Project construction would be approximately 15 months, the IS/MND fails to substantiate the individual construction phase lengths. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 6 Until specific evidence is provided, the model should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of approximately 15 months. The construction schedule included in the model presents an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).8 By disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Input Parameters Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “La Quinta v4” model includes changes to the off-road construction equipment input parameters (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 64). 8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32. 7 The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 As demonstrated above, the justification provided in the “User Changes to Default Data” table is: “Data provided by applicant” (Appendix A, pp. 64). Regarding the Project constructions off-road equipment usage, the IS/MND states: “Typical heavy equipment used during construction would include an excavator, track loader, motor grader, skip loader, scraper, compacter, backhoe, concrete machine, large bulldozer, small bulldozer, and loaded trucks. Construction activities are anticipated to occur for eight- hours a day, five-days a week” (p. 3-2). However, these changes remain unsupported, as the IS/MND fails to provide the purported construction assumptions, as mentioned in the justification provided by the “User Changes to Default Data” table. As previously discussed, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence.10 As the Project documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the updated construction equipment list, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the off-road equipment unit amounts, horsepower, and hours of use per day values to calculate the emissions associated with off- road construction equipment.11 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment values, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “La Quinta v4” model includes changes to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 64). 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2, 9 10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14. 11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 32 8 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.12 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Data provided by applicant” (Appendix A, pp. 64). However, the reductions to the architectural coating emission factors remain unsubstantiated for two reasons. First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to discuss the revisions to the architectural coating emission factors whatsoever. As previously discussed, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence.13 As the Project documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the updated architectural coating, we cannot verify the changes. Second, as previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, Table 5.5 contains the only mention of architectural coatings (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 52): However, as demonstrated above, Table 5.5 only provides the square footage of area to be coated. Since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) emissions.14 By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Trips and VMT Parameter Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “La Quinta v4” model includes changes to the construction trips and VMT values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 64). 12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 13 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14. 14 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 35, 40. 9 The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.15 As demonstrated above, the justification provided in the “User Changes to Default Data” table is: “Data provided by applicant” (Appendix A, pp. 64). These changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to discuss the revisions to the construction trips and VMT values whatsoever. As previously discussed, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires changes to be supported by substantial evidence.16 As the Project documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the updated construction trips and VMT values, we cannot verify the changes. Second, the IS/MND fails to provide the purported construction assumptions, as mentioned in the justification provided by the “User Changes to Default Data” table. Consequently, we cannot verify that the construction trips and VMT values included in the model are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the trips and VMT values to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.17 By including unsubstantiated changes to the construction trips and VMT values, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the IS/MND states: “There would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and the total construction period would be relatively short when compared to a 40-year 15 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2, 9 16 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14. 17 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 34. 10 exposure period. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of DPM and the nearest sensitive uses located approximately 130 feet away as well as additional reductions in particulate emissions from newer construction equipment, as required by USEPA and CARB regulations, construction emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required” (p. 5-22). As demonstrated above, the IS/MND claims that the Project’s construction and operation would not emit significant amounts of toxic air contaminants (“TAC”) due to the limited use of equipment during operation, and the short construction period. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons. First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”18 This poses a problem, as according to the IS/MND, construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment over a duration of approximately 15 months (p. 5-22). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health. Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.19 Furthermore, according to OEHHA: “Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”20 As the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 15-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual 18 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 20 “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. 11 cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).21 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.22 In accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.23 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).24, 25 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to the approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary HRA of the “La Quinta v4” model’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the AQ & GHG Report’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.26 The AQ & GHG Report’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 115.5 pounds of DPM over the 463-day construction period.27 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to 21 “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. 2-4. 22 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 23 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 24 “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. 25 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 26 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 27 See Attachment C for health risk calculations. 12 simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 115.5 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸463 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00131 grams per second (“g/s”). Subtracting the 463-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.73 years. The AQ & GHG Report’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 40 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 40 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸=𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00058 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 1.47-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 109- by 55-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Anaheim was obtained from U.S. 2021 Census data.28 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.29 According to the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are multi-family residences 110 feet, or 33.5 meters, to the north of the Project site (p. 5-4). However, according to the AERSCREEN output files, the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 50 meters downwind of the Project site. The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is therefore approximately 5.057 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.5057 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 2.221 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 28 “Anaheim.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2021, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0602000. 29 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 13 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.2221 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.30 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.31 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and CARB recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows: Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)32 Age Sensitivity Factor 33 Exposure Duration (years) Fraction of Time at Home34 Exposure Frequency (days/year)35 Exposure Time (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24 Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24 Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24 Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24 For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm: 30 See Attachment D for AERSCREEN output files. 31 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplemental- guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2. 32 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 33 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 34 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 35 “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. 5-24. 14 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝= 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝× 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3) EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days) BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1) CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3) To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group: 𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years) AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 463-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 1.02 years of the infantile (0 – 2) stage of life. The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.98 years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16), as well the entire adult (16 – 30 years) stage of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below. The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.5057 6.88E-06 Construction 1.02 0.5057 8.46E-05 Operation 0.98 0.2221 3.58E-05 Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.20E-04 Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.2221 8.04E-05 15 Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.2221 8.93E-06 Lifetime 30 2.17E-04 As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 6.88, 120.0, 80.4, and 8.93 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 217 in one million. The infant, child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA: “EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S. EPA, 1992). In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment). The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 1,909 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (Table 13, p. 5-51). 16 As such, the IS/MND states: “As shown in Table 13, Estimated Total Project Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with consideration of amortized construction emissions, the total annual estimated GHG emissions for the proposed Project is 1,909 MTCO2e/yr. This value is less than the proposed SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold (e.g., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all land use types) that is being applied in this analysis. Because the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant GHG emissions” (p. 5-51). As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that since the Project’s GHG emissions would not exceed the Tier 3 screening threshold, the Project will result in a less-than-significant impact. However, the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons. (1) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model; (2) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The IS/MND’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,909 MT CO2e/year (Table 13, p. 5-51). However, the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, the IS/MND relies on CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project’s air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete output files required to adequately evaluate model’s analysis. Furthermore, when reviewing the CalEEMod output files included in the AQ & GHG Report, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the models may underestimate the Project’s emissions, and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the environment. 17 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,909 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4- 37). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.36 Furthermore, AEP guidance states: “[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.”37 As it is currently November 2023, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the DEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.38 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, to the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year. When applying this threshold, the Project’s air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,909 MT CO2e/year (Table 13, p. 5-51). According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, a service population (“SP”) is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”39 As the Project does not propose any residential land uses, we estimate that the Project would not support any residents. Furthermore, according to the IS/MND, the Project would support 26 employees (p. 5-70).40 Based on this estimate, we calculated an SP of 26 people. When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, by 36 “Health & Safety Code 38550.” California State Legislature, January 2007, available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 37 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 38 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 39 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 40 Calculated: 14 hotel employees + 12 fast food restaurant employees = 26 total employees. 18 an SP of 26 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 73.4 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).41 IS/MND Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 1,909 Service Population 26 Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 73.4 SCAQMD 2035 Threshold 3.0 Exceeds? Yes As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the IS/MND’s provided net annual GHG emission estimates and SP, exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated GHG analysis which incorporates additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 42 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency: 41 Calculated: (1,909 MT CO2e/year) / (26 service population) = (73.4 MT CO2e/SP/year). 42 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 – 4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 19 a) Minimize land disturbance. b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes. c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt. d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities. j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet. k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavy- duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs. u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 20 z)Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible: -Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% -Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. -Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. -Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. -Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer. -Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less. -The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following: i.Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment. ii.Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation. iii.For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date. -The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. -The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: i.Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date. ii.Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii.Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: 1.Source of supply 2.Quantity of fuel 3.Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency: -Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. -Provide traffic calming measures, such as: i.Marked crosswalks ii.Count-down signal timers iii.Curb extensions iv. Speed tables 21 iv. Raised crosswalks v. Raised intersections vi. Median islands vii. Tight corner radii viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles ix. On-street parking x. Chicanes/chokers - Create urban non-motorized zones - Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails - Limit parking supply through: i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements iii. Provision of shared parking - Require residential area parking permit. - Provide ride-sharing programs i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement. Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency: b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. 22 e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit; iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project; vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures; x. Provide bicycle parking; xi. Limit or eliminate park supply; xii. Unbundle parking costs; xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs; xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that: i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes; iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle; v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms; vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites; ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. 23 k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible. l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in. m)Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as: i.Staggered starting times ii.Flexible schedules iii.Compressed work weeks n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as: i.New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii.Event promotions iii.Publications o)Implement preferential parking permit program p) Implement school pool and bus programs q) Price workplace parking, such as: i.Explicitly charging for parking for its employees; ii.Implementing above market rate pricing; iii.Validating parking only for invited guests; iv.Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v.Educating employees about available alternatives. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. As it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize that the energy mix that will charge the batteries and power electrical equipment must be 100% renewable energy resources. Until the feasibility of charging the batteries with renewable energy resources only is evaluated, the Project should not be approved. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants 24 practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗hƉĚĂƚĞĚ,ĞĂůƚŚZŝƐŬĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗Z^ZEKƵƚƉƵƚ&ŝůĞƐ ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗DĂƚƚ,ĂŐĞŵĂŶŶs ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͗WĂƵůZŽƐĞŶĨĞůĚs Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.03 Total DPM (lbs)115.5342466 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.02 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.164383562 Total DPM (g)52406.33425 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.109589041 Construction Duration (days)92 Emission Rate (g/s)0.001310054 Total DPM (lbs)40 Total DPM (lbs)15.12328767 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)0.000575342 Total DPM (g)6859.923288 Total Acreage 1.47 Release Height (meters)3 Start Date 10/1/2023 Max Horizontal (meters)109.08 Total Acreage 1.47 End Date 1/1/2024 Min Horizontal (meters)54.54 Max Horizontal (meters)109.08 Construction Days 92 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)54.54 Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.05 Population 345,940 Setting Urban Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.273972603 Start Date 10/1/2023 Population 345,940 Construction Duration (days)366 End Date 1/6/2025 Total DPM (lbs)100.2739726 Total Construction Days 463 Total DPM (g)45484.27397 Total Years of Construction 1.27 Start Date 1/1/2024 Total Years of Operation 28.73 End Date 1/1/2025 Construction Days 366 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.005 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.02739726 Construction Duration (days)5 Total DPM (lbs)0.136986301 Total DPM (g)62.1369863 Start Date 1/1/2025 End Date 1/6/2025 Construction Days 5 2025 2024 Construction Operation 2023 Total Emission Rate Attachment A AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 11/15/23 10:56:32 TITLE: Pacific Resort Plaza, Construction ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.131E‐02 g/s 0.104E‐01 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE:0.220E‐06 g/(s‐m2) 0.175E‐05 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT:3.00 meters 9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:109.08 meters 357.87 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:54.54 meters 178.94 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN:URBAN POPULATION:345940 INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =5000. meters 16404. feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1* 1.000 5.057 0 50.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment B ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K) MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Winter ALBEDO: 0.35 BOWEN RATIO: 1.50 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters) SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐ 10 01 10 10 01 H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT REF TA HT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10.0 310.0 2.0 AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 11/15/23 10:59:02 TITLE: Pacific Resort Plaza, Operations ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.575E‐03 g/s 0.457E‐02 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.967E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.768E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 109.08 meters 357.87 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 54.54 meters 178.94 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN POPULATION: 345940 INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1* 1.000 2.221 0 50.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K) MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Winter ALBEDO: 0.35 BOWEN RATIO: 1.50 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters) SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐ 10 01 10 10 01 H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT REF TA HT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10.0 310.0 2.0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM MAXIMUM DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC (m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00 1.711 2525.00 0.1073E‐01 25.00 2.010 2550.00 0.1059E‐01 50.00 2.221 2575.00 0.1045E‐01 75.00 1.484 2600.00 0.1031E‐01 100.00 0.9430 2625.00 0.1018E‐01 125.00 0.6811 2650.00 0.1005E‐01 150.00 0.5250 2675.00 0.9919E‐02 175.00 0.4219 2700.00 0.9793E‐02 200.00 0.3497 2725.00 0.9670E‐02 225.00 0.2965 2750.00 0.9550E‐02 250.00 0.2561 2775.00 0.9433E‐02 275.00 0.2245 2800.00 0.9318E‐02 300.00 0.1990 2825.00 0.9205E‐02 325.00 0.1781 2850.00 0.9094E‐02 350.00 0.1609 2875.00 0.8986E‐02 375.00 0.1462 2900.00 0.8881E‐02 400.00 0.1338 2925.00 0.8777E‐02 425.00 0.1230 2950.00 0.8675E‐02 450.00 0.1138 2975.00 0.8575E‐02 475.00 0.1056 3000.00 0.8478E‐02 500.00 0.9844E‐01 3025.00 0.8382E‐02 525.00 0.9206E‐01 3050.00 0.8288E‐02 550.00 0.8634E‐01 3075.00 0.8196E‐02 575.00 0.8122E‐01 3100.00 0.8106E‐02 600.00 0.7661E‐01 3125.00 0.8017E‐02 625.00 0.7244E‐01 3150.00 0.7930E‐02 650.00 0.6865E‐01 3174.99 0.7845E‐02 675.00 0.6519E‐01 3199.99 0.7761E‐02 700.00 0.6203E‐01 3225.00 0.7679E‐02 725.00 0.5912E‐01 3250.00 0.7598E‐02 750.00 0.5644E‐01 3275.00 0.7519E‐02 775.00 0.5397E‐01 3300.00 0.7441E‐02 800.00 0.5169E‐01 3325.00 0.7364E‐02 825.00 0.4956E‐01 3350.00 0.7289E‐02 850.00 0.4758E‐01 3375.00 0.7216E‐02 875.00 0.4573E‐01 3400.00 0.7143E‐02 900.00 0.4400E‐01 3425.00 0.7072E‐02 925.00 0.4237E‐01 3450.00 0.7002E‐02 950.00 0.4085E‐01 3475.00 0.6933E‐02 975.00 0.3941E‐01 3500.00 0.6865E‐02 1000.00 0.3807E‐01 3525.00 0.6799E‐02 1025.00 0.3695E‐01 3550.00 0.6733E‐02 1050.00 0.3575E‐01 3575.00 0.6669E‐02 1075.00 0.3461E‐01 3600.00 0.6606E‐02 1100.00 0.3354E‐01 3625.00 0.6543E‐02 1125.00 0.3252E‐01 3650.00 0.6482E‐02 1150.00 0.3155E‐01 3675.00 0.6422E‐02 1175.00 0.3063E‐01 3700.00 0.6363E‐02 1200.00 0.2976E‐01 3725.00 0.6304E‐02 1225.00 0.2893E‐01 3750.00 0.6247E‐02 1250.00 0.2814E‐01 3775.00 0.6190E‐02 1275.00 0.2738E‐01 3800.00 0.6135E‐02 1300.00 0.2666E‐01 3825.00 0.6080E‐02 1325.00 0.2598E‐01 3849.99 0.6026E‐02 1350.00 0.2532E‐01 3875.00 0.5973E‐02 1375.00 0.2469E‐01 3900.00 0.5920E‐02 1400.00 0.2409E‐01 3925.00 0.5869E‐02 1425.00 0.2351E‐01 3950.00 0.5818E‐02 1450.00 0.2296E‐01 3975.00 0.5768E‐02 1475.00 0.2242E‐01 4000.00 0.5719E‐02 1500.00 0.2191E‐01 4025.00 0.5670E‐02 1525.00 0.2142E‐01 4050.00 0.5622E‐02 1550.00 0.2095E‐01 4075.00 0.5575E‐02 1575.00 0.2049E‐01 4100.00 0.5529E‐02 1600.00 0.2006E‐01 4125.00 0.5483E‐02 1625.00 0.1963E‐01 4149.99 0.5438E‐02 1650.00 0.1923E‐01 4175.00 0.5393E‐02 1675.00 0.1884E‐01 4200.00 0.5349E‐02 1700.00 0.1846E‐01 4225.00 0.5306E‐02 1725.00 0.1809E‐01 4250.00 0.5264E‐02 1750.00 0.1774E‐01 4275.00 0.5221E‐02 1775.00 0.1740E‐01 4300.00 0.5180E‐02 1800.00 0.1707E‐01 4325.00 0.5139E‐02 1825.00 0.1675E‐01 4350.00 0.5099E‐02 1850.00 0.1644E‐01 4375.00 0.5059E‐02 1875.00 0.1614E‐01 4400.00 0.5020E‐02 1900.00 0.1585E‐01 4425.00 0.4981E‐02 1924.99 0.1557E‐01 4450.00 0.4943E‐02 1950.00 0.1529E‐01 4475.00 0.4905E‐02 1975.00 0.1503E‐01 4500.00 0.4868E‐02 2000.00 0.1477E‐01 4525.00 0.4831E‐02 2025.00 0.1452E‐01 4550.00 0.4795E‐02 2050.00 0.1428E‐01 4575.00 0.4759E‐02 2075.00 0.1405E‐01 4600.00 0.4723E‐02 2100.00 0.1382E‐01 4625.00 0.4689E‐02 2125.00 0.1359E‐01 4650.00 0.4654E‐02 2150.00 0.1338E‐01 4675.00 0.4620E‐02 2175.00 0.1317E‐01 4700.00 0.4587E‐02 2200.00 0.1296E‐01 4725.00 0.4553E‐02 2225.00 0.1276E‐01 4750.00 0.4521E‐02 2250.00 0.1257E‐01 4775.00 0.4488E‐02 2275.00 0.1238E‐01 4800.00 0.4456E‐02 2300.00 0.1220E‐01 4825.00 0.4425E‐02 2325.00 0.1202E‐01 4850.00 0.4394E‐02 2350.00 0.1184E‐01 4875.00 0.4363E‐02 2375.00 0.1167E‐01 4900.00 0.4332E‐02 2400.00 0.1151E‐01 4924.99 0.4302E‐02 2425.00 0.1135E‐01 4950.00 0.4273E‐02 2450.00 0.1119E‐01 4975.00 0.4243E‐02 2475.00 0.1103E‐01 5000.00 0.4214E‐02 2500.00 0.1088E‐01 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4) Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm under Screening Guidance MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN 2.256 2.256 2.256 2.256 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 55.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 1.711 1.711 1.711 1.711 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment C 2 •Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); •Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); •Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); •Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); •Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); •Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and •Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: •Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. •Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. •Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. •Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. •Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. •Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. •Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. •Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: •Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. •Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. •Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. •Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. •Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 3 •Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. •Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. •Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: •Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. •Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. •Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: •Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. •Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011. SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources. Attachment D Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171. Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022 Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022 James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company Case No. CIVDS1711810 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022 In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al. Case No. 2020-03891 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022 In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. 20-CA-5502 Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022 In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al. Case No. 19SL-CC03191 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022 In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc. Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022 In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022 In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022 In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-L-56 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022 In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX Case No. A2004464 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. BCV-19-103087 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al. Case No. 2020-L-000550 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central Case No. 2:20-cv-1633 Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022 In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation Case No.16-219-Ca-008796 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022 In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation Case No. 16-cv-5760 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 007599 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central Case No. No. 2019 L 003426 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Jan Holeman vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 000675 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022 In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern Case No. 20-SCCV-091232 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF Case No. 2019 L 007730 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021 In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF Case No. 4:20-cv-03120 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021 In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF Case No. DV 19-1056 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021 In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc. Case No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021 Trial October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc. Case No. CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case No. 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant. Case No. 1716-CV10006 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action No. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015 In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case No. CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case No. cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:07CV1052 Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009 EXHIBIT 2 Letter EMY WI #23-001.18 December 1, 2023 Brian B. Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 SUBJECT: Comments on Pacific Resort Plaza Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Flynn, Per your request, I have reviewed the noise analysis in the Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Pacific Resort Plaza development project at 125 East Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. The following documents were reviewed: Pacific Resort Plaza, Development Project No. 2019-00161 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2023 Appendix H – Noise Calculations The noise analysis is contained in Section 5 chapter XIII of the MND, with supplemental calculations in Appendix H. The proposed project involves the demolition of an existing two-story commercial building and hardscape and the construction of a five-story hotel. The hotel would include two puzzle-lift enclosed parking structures and an outdoor pool located on ground level. The proposed project also includes a separate single-story fast-food restaurant building with drive-thru lane. The project is surrounded by multi-family residential, 80 feet north of the boundary, and commercial and industrial uses to the east, west, and south of the boundary. There are several errors and omissions in the MND noise analysis. Correcting these would potentially identify several significant impacts. The MND should include thorough baseline noise measurements taken at key locations over a multi-day period to establish existing ambient noise levels, address potentially significant noise due to construction activities, and provide supporting information to validate HVAC noise assumptions. WILSON IHRIG Pacific Resort Plaza, Anaheim, Calif. Review of MND Noise Analysis Page 2 Baseline Noise is Not Properly Established An essential aspect of CEQA is documenting the baseline environment so that potential changes may be adequately assessed. The manner in which the MND has determined the existing noise environment is inadequate for two reasons: 1. It neglects the nighttime hours when noise is more likely to cause an impact, and 2. It does not consider the variability that can occur over several days, particularly between a weekday and the weekend. An updated noise study should be prepared that includes thorough baseline measurements taken at key locations throughout the 24-hour days over a multi-day period. The noise analysis included four short-term measurements of 20-minute duration conducted on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, between 11 A.M. and 1 P.M. [MND at p. 5-61 and Appendix H pp. 2 to 9] No data is presented for nighttime conditions when ambient noise levels are lower and residents would be more sensitive to noise increases, and the data does not document variation in noise level that typically occur throughout a day. The MND states “The existing noise environment in and near the Project Site is primarily influenced by traffic noise on East Ball Road and South Anaheim Boulevard”. [MND p. 5-61] However, the baseline noise measurements consisted of short-term measurements during mid-day hours without any discussion of how typical these data were for daytime conditions or how they would apply to evening or nighttime conditions. Environmental noise that is affected by transportation sources can vary widely throughout the day (perhaps +/-10 dBA or more for areas with intermittent local traffic) and relying on measurements that represent only 1% of the time on one particular day during mid-day hours is not a sound basis for a technical analysis. CEQA requires some effort to document the existing baseline conditions at all relevant times. Potentially Significant Impacts from Construction Noise are Not Addressed The construction noise analysis has some inconsistencies and is insufficient to show there would be no potentially significant impacts. Not All Equipment Accounted For More details on the noise sources during construction need to be provided. Depending on the noise sources and equipment used during construction, some activities might produce significant noise and it might not be possible to mitigate them. The estimated noise levels are calculated using noise levels published in 1971 by the U.S. EPA1 for “Office Building, Hotel, Hospital, School, and Public Works” construction sites. The noise levels calculated in the MND are based on the “Minimum required equipment present at site” [Appendix H at p. 10] although the cited EPA document also has source levels for “All pertinent equipment present at site.” An excerpt from the U.S. EPA document is provided in Figure 1 below. For certain construction phases, the noise levels accounting for all pertinent equipment (values indicated in red) are 10 to 14 dBA higher than the noise levels for the minimum required equipment used in the present noise level calculations (values indicated in blue). The MND does not provide any justification 1 “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances”, Prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971. WILSON IHRIG Pacific Resort Plaza, Anaheim, Calif. Review of MND Noise Analysis Page 3 for why the minimum required equipment was selected as a basis for the noise level calculations, instead of all pertinent equipment. The MND must account for all potentially significant scenarios; given the fact that land is expensive in California and that construction workers are in short supply, barring any substantive information about how the project will be built with “minimal equipment”, I think it is only proper to use the “all pertinent equipment” noise level data. If only “the minimum equipment” is to be used during construction, the exact limitations on types and numbers of equipment must be explicitly incorporated into the mitigation measures. Figure 1 Typical Ranges of Noise Level at Construction Sites Published by U.S. EPA (1971) Improper Application of FTA Thresholds The construction noise assessment does not account for the existing noise environment and therefore does not adequately identify substantial and potentially significant increases in ambient noise levels that might occur in the vicinity of the project during construction. WILSON IHRIG Pacific Resort Plaza, Anaheim, Calif. Review of MND Noise Analysis Page 4 The noise analysis evaluates construction noise against the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise guideline criteria for a Detailed Analysis2. [MND at p. 5-67] While the FTA provides guidance for limits on absolute noise levels during construction activities to minimize adverse community reaction, it also emphasizes that the “Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment”. [FTA at p. 179] The FTA Detailed Analysis Construction Noise criterion for daytime residential land use is 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period. Evaluating the noise over an 8-hour period is not appropriate for an MND, since noise levels would be higher for shorter intervals, and this shorter-duration increase in ambient noise levels may be substantial and potentially significant. As noted above, the MND does not adequately establish existing noise levels, nor does it account for all pertinent equipment present during construction; nevertheless, I used the data presented in the MND to develop Table 1 which shows construction noise levels at the two distances from the nearest noise sensitive property boundary. As seen, noise levels would be up to 22 dB higher than existing ambient daytime noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive land use. This is a substantial increase that would cause adverse community reaction and would be significant given that it would be perceived as more than four times louder than the baseline noise levels .3 A 16 to 17 dB increase would be perceived as trebling of loudness. Table 1 Comparison of Calculated Construction Noise Levels to Existing Daytime Ambient Noise Levels at Closest Noise Sensitive Use North of the Project Location Calculated Construction Noise Level per MND Table 18, Leq (dBA) Measured Noise Level per MND Table 15, Leq (dBA) Increase over Existing (dBA), range from 265 ft to 80 ft 80 ft 265 ft Existing Ground Clearing / Demolition 75 65 53 12 - 22 Excavation 70 60 53 7 - 17 Foundation Construction 69 59 53 6 - 16 Building Construction 66 56 53 3 - 13 Paving and Site Cleanup 66 56 53 3 - 13 Errors in MND Appendix The construction noise analysis results are not correctly summarized. The backup calculations for construction generated noise shown in Appendix H do not match Table 18 in the MND. In Appendix H construction noise for the north residential receptor located at a distance of 80 feet are indicated as 80, 75, 74, 71, 71 (dBA Leq) for the five phases of construction. In Table 18 of the MND the construction noise for the same receptor at 80 feet is indicated as 75, 70, 69, 66, and 66 for the five phases of construction. It is more likely that the figures in the technical appendix are the correct 2 See Section 7 of FTA “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.” September 2018. 3 A 10 dB increase in noise level is commonly perceived as a doubling of loudness. [Bies D., Hansen C., Howard C., Engineering Noise Control (5ed., Taylor & Francis, 2018) at p. 74] 20 dB is two 10 dB increases, therefore two doublings, i.e., a fourfold increase in the perception of loudness. WILSON IHRIG Pacific Resort Plaza, Anaheim, Calif. Review of MND Noise Analysis Page 5 values, and, if so, the increase over the existing ambient would be up to 27 dBA which is 6-1/2 times louder than the existing baseline. Operational HVAC Noise Assessment Requires Supporting Information The HVAC noise assessment does not provide sufficient evidence to rule out all potentially significant impacts. An analysis should be prepared that assesses the project noise in the context of the existing ambient noise as required by CEQA. Potential for Higher HVAC Noise The Project would include new mechanical equipment which the MND presumes “would be located at least 300 feet from the nearest residential uses north of the site”. [MND at p. 5-63] The distance used in the Appendix H noise calculations is 250 feet. However, the closest hotel rooms are on the order of 80 to 100 feet away from the nearest residential property line [MND Exhibit 4]. In my experience, that would be an unusually far distance to pipe conditioned air. In addition, it is very common for hotels to use Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC) which are individual units for each room, and the MND states “HVAC units would ductless individual units that each serve 4 rooms.” [MND at p. 5-63] So, it seems implausible that the HVAC equipment will be 250 feet from the nearest residences. The MND presumes the Project will include “quiet” units which produce a sound pressure level of 60 dBA at 20 feet. It should provide citation or evidence for the source noise level used in the calculations. It describes that each unit serves 4 rooms, but it is unclear whether the noise calculations have considered more than one unit operating at the same time. During cold nights, more than one unit could be operating. As noted above, several units could be closer to the property line than 250 feet. Substantial Increase over Existing Ambient The MND does not consider whether the HVAC noise would cause a substantial noise increase over existing noise, particularly during nighttime conditions when ambient noise levels are lower and residents would be more sensitive to noise increases. The daytime, 20-minute noise data reported in the MND shows the minimum noise level at the northern project boundary is 45 dBA during the middle of the day [MND at p. 5-61]; nighttime levels are typically lower. HVAC noise at the property line was assessed using the Anaheim Local Municipal Code limit of 60 dBA at the property line. [MND at p. 5-63] Even if nighttime noise levels (which have not been established) are on the order of 45 dBA, HVAC noise on the order of 60 dBA would be 15 dBA louder than the existing ambient noise. This is a substantial increase that would cause adverse community reaction and would be significant given that it would be perceived as more than twice as loud as the baseline noise levels. Conclusions • No baseline noise data is presented for nighttime conditions when ambient noise levels are lower and project noise is more likely to cause significant impacts. • Baseline noise data does not document variation in noise level that typically occur throughout a day, and over several days. • The MND construction noise analysis does not account for all potentially significant scenarios; it provides no justification for why the calculated noise levels are based on WILSON IHRIG Pacific Resort Plaza, Anaheim, Calif. Review of MND Noise Analysis Page 6 “minimum required equipment”. If only “the minimum equipment” is to be used during construction, the exact limitation on types and numbers of equipment must be explicitly incorporated into the mitigation measures. • The MND construction noise assessment does not account for the existing noise environment and does not consider whether construction would generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels as required by CEQA. • There are discrepancies in the construction generate noise levels shown in MND Table 18 and the Appendix H noise calculations. • The HVAC noise assessment does not provide sufficient evidence to rule out all potentially significant impacts due to more than one unit operating simultaneously, and multiple units located closer to the property line than 250 feet. No citation or evidence for the source noise level used in the calculation is given. • The MND does not consider whether the HVAC noise would cause a substantial noise increase over existing noise, as required by CEQA, particularly during nighttime conditions when ambient noise levels are lower and residents would be more sensitive to noise increases. Given the errors and omissions in the MND, we have shown that potentially significant noise impacts may be caused by the project. At a minimum, the MND should be revised and recirculated to address our comments, however, it may be advisable to prepare a full environmental impact report for the project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG Silas Bensing, INCE Bd. Cert Associate Principal wilson ihrig - comments on pacific resort plaza noise analysis.docx SILAS BENSING, INCE Bd. Cert. Associate Principal Silas joined Wilson Ihrig in 2008 and works on a variety of projects involving environmental noise, construction noise and vibration, architectural/HVAC noise, rail transit noise and vibration, and structural vibration. He has extensive experience in techniques and instrumentation for field measurement of noise and vibration. He is proficient in the use of GIS and noise modeling software such as SoundPLAN, CadnaA, and TNM for calculation, assessment, and mapping of railway, highway, and other environmental noise sources. He is Board Certified in noise control engineering through the Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA (INCE-USA). Education • M.Eng., Acoustics, The Pennsylvania State University (expected Spring 2024) • B.A., Audio Arts and Acoustics; Columbia College Chicago Professional Memberships • Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Full Member • Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE-USA) Board Certified Member • National Council of Acoustical Consultants (NCAC) Director-at-Large/Individual Member Project Experience Millennium Bulk Terminals, Longview, WA Prepared noise analysis for the project’s NEPA and SEPA environmental impact statements. Tasks included future rail traffic modeling using CadnaA and preparation of noise contours using GIS. Bayview Waterfront DEIR San Francisco 49ers Stadium Operational Noise Study, CA Developed SoundPLAN model to analyze noise impacts on surrounding community. California High-Speed Rail EIR/EIS, San Francisco to San Jose Section, CA Prepared the noise analysis for the project’s environmental impact assessment. Conducted existing ambient noise characterization, performed wayside noise prediction and evaluated noise impacts and mitigation. GIS and SoundPLAN operation. California High-Speed Rail EIR/EIS, San Jose to Merced Section, CA Prepared the vibration analysis for the project’s environmental impact assessment. Tasks included assessing vibration from transit operations and GIS operations. Caltrain Electrification, San Mateo County Transit District, CA Prepared the noise and vibration analysis for the project’s environmental impact assessment. Tasks included characterizing the existing noise and vibration conditions and assessing noise and vibration from transit operations and construction-related activities. I-880 Operational and Safety Improvements, Oakland, CA Developed highway noise model and performed sound barrier analysis using FHWA TNM. WILSON IHRIG Silas Bensing – Page 2 State Route 24 Pre-NBSSR Noise Study, Oakland, CA Analyzed field data, developed highway noise model and performed sound barrier analysis using FHWA TNM, and prepared report. Jordan Ranch Residential Project, Dublin, CA Prepared noise study report as required by California Code of Regulations Title 24 for two neighborhoods of the proposed residential project. Tasks included modeling future traffic noise levels using FHWA TNM and evaluating exterior-to-interior noise control. Kaiser Vallejo Building E Demolition, Vallejo, CA Made estimates of noise and vibration levels due to planned demolition work, and recommended practices for contractor to minimize noise and vibration-related disruptions on hospital occupants within the adjacent hospital building. Union City Sanitation District Admin Building / New Headquarters Acoustical design of new headquarters building. Issues addressed included exterior noise control for rooftop HVAC equipment and emergency generator, interior HVAC noise control, and interior acoustics of offices and conference rooms. San Pablo Dam Seismic Retrofit, El Sobrante, CA Responsible for remote noise data management and preparation of monthly construction noise monitoring reports. San Rafael High School, CA Prepared construction noise reduction plan for a new two-story building. Tasks included noise calculations from equipment and report preparation. Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha Construction Noise Plan, Union City, CA Prepare construction noise and vibration control plan for new building. Tasks included noise and vibration calculations and report preparation. Stanford University Construction Noise, Palo Alto, CA Assisted Stanford planning department evaluate construction noise from planned projects. Tyco Electronics, Menlo Park, CA Developed comprehensive 3D computer model using CadnaA to model noise from existing outdoor mechanical equipment, predict effects on noise levels from planned equipment upgrades and additions, and evaluate compliance with local noise legislation. New York MTA Long Island Railroad East Side Access, NY Consultation on multiple contracts. Work included estimates of noise levels from construction equipment, and preparation of site-specific construction noise plans outlining the control methods required to comply with project noise limits. New York MTA Metro-North Railroad Park Avenue Viaduct Master Plan Study, NY Noise and vibration subconsultant on Master Plan team to develop recommendations for phased replacement and rehabilitation of the Park Avenue Viaduct. Managed project and authored technical reports to address existing train noise and noise control considerations for new and rehabilitated structure. WILSON IHRIG Silas Bensing – Page 3 New York City Council Proposed Noise Code Amendment for Noise Monitoring Near Schools, NY Reviewed and provided recommendations to attorney with regard to Int. No. 420-2014, the proposed New York City Council amendment for construction noise monitoring near schools. 50 Pine Street Condominiums, New York, NY Project involved evaluating noise at residential dwelling units for NYC noise code compliance. Measured noise levels from mechanical equipment in enclosed courtyard. State University of New York at Albany, Rehabilitation of Water Tower and Foundations, NY Developed a noise and vibration control program for rehabilitation of the campus water tower and main fountain with recommended noise and vibration controls for surrounding academic buildings during construction. Installed a remote continuous noise monitoring system. Bay Park Conveyance Noise Monitoring Plan, Nassau County, Long Island, NY Prepared noise control and monitoring plan for construction work associated with microtunneling along a 11-mile-long corridor and construction of two pump stations. Identified noise-sensitive receivers within 500 feet of work and reviewed noise ordinances for five municipalities to identify site-specific noise limitations for each work site. WMATA A/E Planning Services Metro Center and L’Enfant Plaza Station Improvements, DC Evaluated potential construction noise and vibration impacts associated with the Metro Center Station and L’Enfant Plaza Center Station improvements consisting of the addition of new street- mezzanine elevators and interior elevators and escalators.