HomeMy WebLinkAbout0014_4_Exhibit B - IS-MND Comments ReceivedCOMMENT 1 Exhibit B - IS/MND Comments Received
May 14, 2020
Via E-mail
Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development
Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Justin.Shiu@ssf.net
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 840 El
Camino Real Hotel Project
Dear Honorable Members of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission and Ms. Wan:
I am writing on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America Local Union
No. 270 and its members living in and around the City of South San Francisco (“LIUNA”)
regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the 840 El Camino
real Hotel Project proposed for South San Francisco (the “Project”). After reviewing the
IS/MND, we conclude that it fails to analyze all environmental impacts and to implement all
necessary mitigation measures. LIUNA respectfully requests that the City of South San
Francisco (“the City”) prepare an EIR in order to incorporate our concerns discussed below.
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist,
Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH. Mr. Offerman’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached
as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
This comment is also prepared with the assistance of noise expert Derek Watry of the
acoustics firm Wilson Ihrig. Mr. Watry reviewed the IS/MND and its noise appendix and
determined that Project construction will have a significant noise impact on adjacent residential
properties that must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR. Mr. Watry’s comments are attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
Finally, this comment has been prepared with the assistance of the environmental
consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). SWAPE’s comment the
consultants’ curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by
reference in their entirety.
COMMENT 2
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 2 of 17
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves the demotion of an existing 2,000 square foot commercial building
and associated parking lots, and construction of a new hotel building at 840 El Camino Real, in
the City of South San Francisco. The hotel would be 50,231 gross square feet, and include 95
guest rooms over five stories, with two levels of subterranean parking. The existing building is
vacant, and used to operate as an Arby’s, but has been closed for several years. Operation of
the hotel is expected to require approximately 10 employees at a time.
The Project site is located immediately adjacent to West Coast Auto Service and Daland
Body shop to the north, single family residences to the east, and the All Seasons Lodge hotel to
the south. Three schools are within 0.25 mile of the project site. R.W. Drake Preschool Center is
located approximately 360 feet to the west, Los Cerritos Elementary is located approximately 0.2
miles southeast and Baden High School is located approximately 0.24 miles southwest.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a
nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the
project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an
EIR.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th
310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,
75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491,
504–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068;
see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the
CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d
at 83. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to
be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (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, 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, 124 Cal.App.4th at 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 §
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 3 of 17
21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an
agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly
indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371),
only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental
effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal
effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty
[to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed
project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129
Cal.App.3d 436, 440.
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated
negative declaration is proper only if the 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.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant
effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 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.
Under the “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, 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, 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.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 4 of 17
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that
“it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference
to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in
favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in
original).
III. DISCUSSION
A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a
Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a
review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air
emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (April 28, 2020) (Exhibit A). Mr.
Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose employees of the Project to
significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-
causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has
published extensively on the topic. See attached CV.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials
and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain
formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states,
“The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with
urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard.
These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards,
window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Offermann, pp. 2-3.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair
argument that future employees of the hotel will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde
of approximately 16.4 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air
Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., p. 4. This exceeds the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (“BAAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for
airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id. Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant
environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed
to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id.
Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s
indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result
of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. El Camino Real, A
Street, 1st Street, 2nd Street, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air.
Offermann, pp. 9-10. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health
impacts that will result to future employees of the Project.
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be
analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 5 of 17
formaldehyde exposure. Id. at 4. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are
available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a
requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood,
medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with
CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde
(ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Id. at 11-12.
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental
impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2
v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a
burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s
potential health impacts to employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the
City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future
formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below
the BAAQMD level. Id., pp. 5-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality
modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.
The failure to address the project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California
Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could
enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent
environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally
require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-
801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions
at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801
(“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project
could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that
CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a
project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800
(emphasis added).
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an
existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Employees
will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at
the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks.
Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor
air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the
project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA
process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA
expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must
be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example,
requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the
‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 6 of 17
directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the
Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public
health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000,
subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future employees of
the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those workers is as important to
CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a
significant environmental impact to future users of the project, an EIR must be prepared to
disclose and mitigate those impacts.
B. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a
Significant Noise Impact.
1. Contrary to the IS/MND’s conclusion, the Project will have a significant
noise impact from noise generated during Project construction.
Noise expert Derek Watry reviewed the proposed Project and relevant documents
regarding the Project’s noise impacts and concluded that the MND improperly analyzed
construction noise levels. Mr. Watry concludes that when analyzed properly, construction noise
levels during construction would create a significant noise impact. Watry, p. 1.
As a threshold of significance, the IS/MND relies on the following standard as a
threshold of significance, taken from South San Francisco Municipal Code section
8.32.050(d)(2):
The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not
exceed ninety dB.
There are two problems with the IS/MND’s noise analysis based on this threshold of
significance. First, the IS/MND relies on average noise levels, rather than maximum noise
levels. Watry, p. 2. “This is inconsistent with the noise ordinance, which does not limit the
average noise level, but rather prohibits any noise above 90 dBA.” Watry, p. 2. While Appendix
NOI includes calculations for both the maximum and average noise levels, only the average
levels are relied on in the body of the IS/MND, and it is the average numbers that are included in
Table 15 and compared to the threshold of significance.1 Reliance on the average noise levels is
inconsistent with the Municipal Code.
Second, the IS/MND erroneously calculated distance to relevant building facades rather
than the relevant property planes, despite the clear language of the code that requires assessment
to “any point outside of the property plane of the project.” Watry, p. 2.
1 Despite the statement on page 101 that “Table 15 shows the maximum expected construction
noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor . . .”, the data in Table 15 are actually the average
construction noise levels (“Leq”), not the maximum levels (“Lmax”).
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 7 of 17
In determining significance, the MND’s “construction noise analysis analyzes the noise
levels at two receptors, (i) the neighboring All Season Lodge south of the project site and (ii) the
nearest private residences east of the project site. Watry, pp. 1-2. The analysis is based on the
closest distance from the “anticipated edge of the construction site” to each of these two
buildings, which the MND states are 20 and 70 feet respectively to the hotel and the homes. Id.
at 2 (citing IS/MND, p. 101).
As Mr. Watry explains in his comment, “[i]n the case of the private residences on A
Street, the IS/MND uses a distance of 70 feet, however, the site plan in the IS/MND clearly
shows that the proposed hotel will be only 15 feet from the property plane.” Id (citing IS/MND,
p. 8, Figure 3).
As Mr. Watry explains in his comment, the maximum noise level during any phase of
construction is determined by the single loudest piece of equipment. Watry, p. 3. When based
on the correct distance of 15 feet from the adjacent residential property plane, Mr. Watry
calculated the maximum noise levels for each construction phase using information taken
directly from the IS/MND analysis. Id. Mr. Watry determined that the maximum noise level
will exceed the threshold of significance for four of the five phases of construction. This
Phase Loudest Equipment Max Level
at 50 ft
Max Level
at 15 ft
Demolition Excavator 80.7 dBA 91.2 dBA
Grading Compactor (ground) 83.2 dBA 93.7 dBA
Site Prep Compactor (ground) 83.2 dBA 93.7 dBA
Construction Crane & Generator 80.6 dBA 91.1 dBA
Paving Paver 77.2 dBA 87.7 dBA
As Mr. Watry’s calculations demonstrate, “the maximum noise level will exceed the
CSSF Municipal Code limit at the residential property plane for all but the last phase of
construction. Because 90 dBA limit at the property plane is the adopted threshold of
significance, construction noise should identified as a significant noise impact.” Watry, p. 3.
2. Project construction will a significant impact on ambient noise which was
not analyzed in the IS/MND.
CEQA also requires an analysis of whether a project will generate a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, yet the IS/MND fails to do so.
Watry, p. 3; CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. Enough information is included in the IS/MD that
Mr. Watry was able to conduct this analysis.
The IS/MND includes noise measurements taken at the “Back of project site, adjacent to
the back of A Street Residences.” Watry, p. 3. The average ambient average noise level was
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 8 of 17
63.4 dBA, with the primary noise source being traffic on El Camino Real. Id.; IS/MND, p. 97,
table 13.
Mr. Watry explains that the Project site elevation is higher than the adjacent residential
back yards, with the Project property built up behind a retaining wall. Id. at 3 to 4. This
elevation change is relevant to the ambient noise analysis but was not taken into account in the
IS/MND. According to Mr. Watry:
Because there is a large, sharp change in elevation between the project site and the
residential backyard, the traffic noise from El Camino Real is shielded by what is
effectively an 8-foot sound barrier wall (see sketch below). It is reasonable to assume
that the difference is 5 dB, the minimal amount for a wall that breaks the line-of-sight
between a noise source and a receiver by a few feet. With the inclusion of the 5 dB noise
reduction associated with the elevation change, a reasonable estimate of the existing
ambient noise level in the backyards is 58.4 dBA Leq.
Id.
While much of the noise from traffic on El Camino Real is attenuated by the elevation
change, that is not true of the noise made by construction equipment on the Project site. This is
because: “(i) it will operate much nearer to the property plane, and (ii) the main noise source is
the top of the exhaust stack which is typically 7 to 8 feet high (to minimize workers breathing
exhaust fumes). Given these two conditions, the exhaust stack will be visible from the backyards
for much of the time.” Watry, p. 4.
Mr. Watry calculated the increased above existing ambient noise levels during each phase
of construction, with the results in the table below.
Phase Avg (Leq)
Noise Level
Increase Above
Existing Ambient
Demolition 74.4 dBA 16.0 dB
Grading 75.4 dBA 17.0 dB
Site Prep 77.2 dBA 18.8 dB
Construction 76.9 dBA 18.5 dB
Paving 70.1 dBA 11.7 dB
As the IS/MND itself states, an increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud. Watry, p. 5;
IS/MND at p. 96. This is a significant increase in ambient noise that will impact residents for at
least 18 months. Mr. Watry explains that:
[I]t is common practice to use 10 dB as the threshold of significance for temporary
increases in ambient noise levels. As the table above indicates, this threshold will be
exceeded for all phases of construction. Furthermore, it will exceed 15 dB for four of the
five construction phases, the majority of the project development time. Therefore, the
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 9 of 17
temporary increase in ambient noise levels brought about by the construction of the
project should be identified as a significant noise impact.
Id. at 5.
Mr. Watry’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact that
was not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the IS/MND. An EIR is required to address this
significant impact.
C. The IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project will not have significant operational air
quality impacts from criteria pollutant emissions is not supported by substantial
evidence.
The IS/MND concludes that the Project will not have significant operational air quality
impacts, but no evaluation was conducted to determine Project emissions. IS/MND, p. 37.
Instead, the IS/MND claims that the Project is less than the BAAQMD’s screening level size,
and as a result, there is no need to evaluate the Project’s criteria pollution emissions.
Specifically, the IS/MND states:
The BAAQMD operational screening level size for hotels is 489 guest rooms. The
proposed project includes 95 guest rooms and therefore is below the screening size. As a
result, per BAAQMD guidance, a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s criteria
air pollutant emissions is not necessary, and project operation would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Id.
The problem with the above statements is that they are inconsistent with the BAAQMD’s
2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. SWAPE, p. 2. According to the Guidelines, the operational
criteria pollutant screening size of a 489-room hotel only applies to operational NOx emissions,
as shown in the excerpt below.2
The screening threshold for hotels says nothing about whether the a hotel with fewer than
489 rooms would result in significant emissions of other criteria pollutants such as CO, PM2.5,
PM10, or SOx. Id. Without having conducted a quantitative analysis of the Project’s operational
emissions, there is no evidence to support the IS/MND’s finding that the Project’s emissions of
these criteria pollutants will not result in a significant impact.
2 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 3-
2, Table 3-1.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 10 of 17
D. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project
Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality
Impacts.
The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions
Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (“CalEEMod”). This model relies on
recommended default values for on-site specific information related to a number of factors. The
model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed
the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were
unsubstantiated or inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND. This results in an
underestimation of the Project’s emissions. As a result, the IS/MND is not supported by
substantial evidence. When correct inputs were used in an updated model, SWAPE determined
that the Project may have significant air quality impacts. An EIR is required to properly analyze
these potential impacts.
1. The IS/MND relied on an unsubstantiated utility company and associated
intensity factors.
The CalEEMod output files demonstrate that the utility company was entered as “User
Defined,” and CO2 intensity factor of 105.93, a CH4 intensity factor of 0 and an N2O intensity
factor of 0 were manually entered. SWAPE, p. 3 (citing IS/MND Appendix AQ, pp. 148, 180).
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification for this
was “Peninsula Clean Energy.” IS/MND, Appendix AQ, p. 181. SWAPE points out that this
change is not substantiated and incorrect for two reasons. First, three is no evidence to support
the intensity factors assumed by the model. SWAPE, p. 3. Second, the IS/MND states that
PG&E would provide natural gas to the Project site, with Peninsula Clean Energy providing
electricity. IS/MND, p. 22. It was therefore incorrect for the model to assume that the only
utility – and associated intensity factors – would be Peninsula Clean Energy. By using an
unsubstantiated intensity factors, the model underestimates Project emissions.
2. The IS/MND made unsubstantiated changes to the construction schedule.
The CalEEMod output files indicate that several changes were made to the default
construction period for the Project. IS/MND, Appendix AQ, pp. 150, 182. As the excerpt below
demonstrates, the time period for each construction phase was increased from the default value.
Id. According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification for
these changes was: “Applicant provided schedule.” Id. at Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181. The
IS/MND states similarly that “The construction schedule and list of construction equipment were
based on applicant-provided data.” IS/MND, p. 36. These conclusory statements do not
constitute subtantail evidence that would justify the dramatic changes from default construction
times. Moreover, the IS/MND does not specify what the construction schedule would actually
be. As SWAPE explains, “spreading out construction emissions over a longer period than is
expected results in an underestimation of the maximum daily emissions associated with
construction.” SWAPE, p. 4. Unless additional evidence is provided as to why every phase of
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 11 of 17
construction would take between 3.5 and 22 times longer than normal, reliance on the revised
construction schedule is not supported by substantial evidence and underestimates the Project’s
construction emissions. Id.
3. The IS/MND relied on unsubstantiated changes to off-road construction
equipment horsepower, load factor, and unit amount.
The CalEEMod output files show that the model’s off-road construction equipment
horsepower, load factor, and unit amounts were manually reduced. SWAPE, p. 4 (citing
IS/MND, Appendix AQ, pp. 150, 180). The “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data”
provided the following justification: “Applicant-provided list.” Id. (citing IS/MND, Appendix
AQ, pp.149, 181). Despite these changes, he IS/MND never discloses the “Applicant-provided”
construction equipment list that would justify these changes. SWAPE, p. 4.
4. The IS/MND relied on an unsubstantiated number of worker and vendor
trips.
The CalEEMod output files show that several changes were made to the Project’s
anticipated number of vendor and worker trips. SWAPE, p. 5 (citing IS/MND Appendix AQ, pp.
150, 180). According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the
justification provided for these changes is: “Applicant provided.” Id. (citing IS/MND Appendix
AQ, pp. 149, 181). As with the changes to construction equipment inputs, the IS/MND provides
no justification for these changes in the number of worker and vendor trips from default values.
5. The IS/MND relied on an unsubstantiated change to indoor water use rate.
The Project’s indoor water use rate was manually reduced from 2,409,843.15 gallons per
year (“gpy”) to 1,927,875 gpy, a reduction of approximately 20%. SWAPE, p. 5 (citing
IS/MND, Appendix AQ, pp. 150, 182). According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-
Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “20% reduction for 2016
CALGreen.” SWAPE, p. 5, (citing IS/MND, Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181). The IS/MND also
states:
Modeling of GHG emissions from water consumption and wastewater generation
includes a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use to account for compliance with
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 12 of 17
CALGreen, use of low-flow fixtures, and installation of a water-efficient irrigation
system.
IS/MND, p. 71.
These explanations are not sufficient to justify the changes to the CalEEMod model.
SWAPE, p. 6. First, the IS/MND fails to describe which measures it will actually implement to
allow the Project to achieve a 20% reduction in indoor water use. Id. Second, water use
reductions are already accounted for by the model’s water-related operational mitigation
measures. Id. (citing IS/MND, Appendix AQ, pp. 178, 212). The model is double counting
water use reductions by including both the water-related operational mitigation measures and a
20% reduction of the Project’s indoor water use rate. Id.
6. The IS/MND relied on unsubstantiated mobile, energy, and water-related
operational mitigation measures.
The CalEEMod output files show that the model included the following mobile, energy,
and water-related operational mitigation measures:
• Mobile Mitigation Measures:
o Improve Destination Accessibility
o Increase Transit Accessibility
• Energy Mitigation Measures
o Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
o Install Energy Efficient Appliances
• Water Mitigation Measures
o Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
o Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
o Install Low Flow Toilet
o Install Low Flow Shower
o Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
IS/MND, Appendix AQ, pp, 173, 175, 178, 206, 208, 212.
SWAPE concludes that inclusion of these mitigation measures is unsubstantiated.
SWAPE, p. 7. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide,
The mitigation measures included in CalEEMod are largely based on the CAPCOA
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf)
document. The CAPCOA measure numbers are provided next to the mitigation measures
in CalEEMod to assist the user in understanding each measure by referencing back to the
CAPCOA document.
Id. As SWAPE explains in their comments, the IS/MND fails to meet the requirements for
including these mitigation measures in the CalEEMod model. Id. at 7-11.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 13 of 17
E. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project may have a Significant Air Quality
Impact.
SWAPE prepared an updated CalEEMod for the Project, correcting the errors discussed
above. SWAPE’s model demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOx
emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s 54 lbs/day threshold of significance. SWAPE, p. 11.
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Model VOC NOx
SWAPE 290 252
BAAQMD Regional Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes
SWAPE’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have a
significant construction-related air quality impact. CEQA requires this impact be analyzed and
mitigated in an EIR.
F. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate
Matter Emissions
1. The IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to support its finding that the
Project’s emissions will not cause a significant health impact.
The IS/MND concludes that the health risk impact from diesel particulate matter related
to Project construction and operation will be less than significant. In making this finding, the
IS/MND does not conduct a quantified a health risk assessment (“HRA”) for Project construction
or operation. SWAPE, p. 11. The IS/MND attempts does not address its failure to conduct a
construction HRA, but it does attempt to justify omission of an operational HRA by stating:
Common sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and
high-volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome
plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities
(BAAQMD 2017c). The proposed project does not involve any of these uses; therefore, it
is not considered a common source of TACs...Therefore, project operation would not
generate a substantial amount of TAC emissions that could affect nearby sensitive
receptors, and impacts would be less than significant.
IS/MND, p. 39.
SWAPE explains that this justification and the IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project will
not have a significant health risk impact are incorrect. First, the IS/MND’s failure to conduct a
construction HRA is inconsistent with the approach recommended by the California Office of
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 14 of 17
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is the organization responsible
for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. SWAPE, p. 12. OEHHA
recommends all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to
nearby sensitive receptors. Id. Here, Project construction is expected to last 561 days, much
longer than two months. Id. As a result, a health risk assessment should have been conducted to
determine health risk impacts from the Project’s construction emissions. Id.
Second, the fact that the Project does not involve commons sources of TACs is not
evidence that the Project will not produce significant TACs that may impact human health, and
does not justify failing to conduct an operational HRA. Id.
As SWAPE explains:
According to the IS/MND’s Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”), provided as Appendix TRA to
the IS/MND, Project operation will generate approximately 344 daily vehicle trips, which
will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive
receptors to DPM emissions (Appendix TRA, p. 22). The OEHHA document
recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the
duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to
estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).3
Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can
reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more.
Therefore, we recommend that health risks from Project operation also should have been
evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2-month and 6-month
requirements set forth by OEHHA.
Id.
Without conducting an HRA for Project construction or operation, the City lacks
substantial evidence to support the IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project will not have a
significant health risk impact.
2. SWAPE conducted a screening-level health risk assessment that indicates
a significant health risk impact.
SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project
construction and operation. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality
dispersion model. SWAPE, p. 13. SWAPE used a sensitive receptor distance of 25 meters,
which is the location of the maximally exposed receptor,4 and analyzed impacts to individuals at
3 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15 4 The closest sensitive receptor is located 18 meters from the Project site. However, 100 meters
was used in the HRA based on AERSCREEN output files which demonstrate that the maximally
exposed receptor is located 100 meters from the Project site. SWAPE, p. 12.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 15 of 17
different stages of life based on OEHHA and BAAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity
factors. SWAPE, pp. 13-16.
SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk for adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd
trimester of pregnancy at a sensitive receptor located approximately 25 meters away over the
course of Project construction and operation are approximately 23, 150, 270, and 12 in one
million, respectively. SWAPE, p. 16. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course
of a Project operation is approximately 450 in one million. Id. The risks to adults, children,
infants, during 3rd trimester pregnancy, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed the
BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence
that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions.
The City must prepare an EIR with a more refined HRA that is representative of site conditions
in order to evaluate the Project’s health risk impact and to include suitable mitigation measures.
G. Contrary to the IS/MND’s Conclusion, the Project Will Have a Significant GHG
Impact.
1. The IS/MND’s GHG analysis violates CEQA.
The IS/MND claims that the Project would not have a significant greenhouse gas
(“GHG”) impact because: 1) according to the IS/MND annual Project emissions would be 577
metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/yr”), which would be less than the
BAAQMD threshold of 660 MT CO2e/yr, and 2) according to the IS/MND, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project would be consistent with the City of
South San Francisco CAP. SWAPE, p. 17 (citing IS/MND, pp. 72-74). The IS/MND’s
justifications and conclusion that the Project’s GHG impacts are less-than-significant violate
CEQA for a number of reasons.
First, the IS/MND’s determination that the Project’s GHG emissions would be
577 MT CO2e/yr is not supported by substantial evidence because the number is based
on incorrect and unsubstantiated air model inputs, as described above. SWAPE, p. 17.
Second, the IS/MND cannot rely on the City’s CAP because it is out of date. The
IS/MND itself admits that “The City’s CAP is not a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy because
it does not establish a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target consistent with SB 32.” IS/MND, p.
72. Without emissions reduction targets consistency with SB 32, consistency with the City’s
CAP is not evidence that the Project will not have a significant GHG impact.
2. The Project will have a significant GHG impact.
Using the updated CalEEMod model discussed above, SWAPE determined that the
Project may have a significant GHG impact. SWAPE, p. 18. The updated model discloses
annual operational GHG emissions of approximately 998 MT CO2e/year. Id. This exceeds the
BAAQMD threshold of significance of 660 MT CO2e/year.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 16 of 17
SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Area 0.003
Energy 621.496
Mobile 343.272
Waste 26.156
Water 7.362
Total 998.290
Threshold 660
Exceed? Yes
Because the BAAQMD’s 660 MT CO2e/year threshold is exceeded, a service population
analysis is warranted. Since the IS/MND did not provide an estimated number of total
employees, SWAPE used the US. Department of Energy’s square foot per employees value.
SWAPE, p. 18. SWAPE found that, dividing the Project’s GHG emission by its estimated
service population of 123 people means that the Project would emit approximately 8.1 MT
CO2e/SP/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 2.6 of MT CO2e/SP/year
and the 2020 BAAQMD service population efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/year. Id.
at 18-19.
SWAPE Service Population Efficiency Analysis
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Annual GHG Emissions 998.3
Service Population 123
Service Population Efficiency 8.1
Threshold 4.6
Exceed? Yes
Threshold 2.6
Exceed? Yes
SWAPE’s comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have a
significant greenhouse gas impact. This impact must be fully analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.
SWAPE’s comments include a number of mitigation measures available to reduce the Project’s
GHG emissions, and these should all be considered by the City.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
May 14, 2020
Page 17 of 17
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft
EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you
for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT A
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: April 28, 2020
To: Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project – South San Francisco,
CA (IEE File Reference: P-4355)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and
the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-
recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance
building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission,
2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because
occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the
majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are
most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy
their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working
from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a
serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings
relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of
exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate
ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration
of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous
24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the
respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3.
The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136
µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of
18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the Bay Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory
irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels
(RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the
Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured
with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and
3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring,
cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics
control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood
products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also
furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air
Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions
from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built
with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde
concentrations that are below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018
(Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built
after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor
formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb)
as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38% lower
median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk
is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products,
which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA,
2017a).
With respect to this project, the buildings in the 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project in South
San Francisco, CA consist of a hotel.
The employees of the hotel are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g.,
40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to
result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the
building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and
hotels.
4 of 19
Because the hotel will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials,
and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor
formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in
residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median
of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the hotel employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day,
the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 149 µg/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years
(start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose
is 65.8 µg/day.
This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact
should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should
impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation
measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.
While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built with
CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that indoor
formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels,
residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this project
and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted prior to
completion of the environmental review.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM,
provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials
will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products.
5 of 19
The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the
environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations
resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings
selected for the building exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses
can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s
CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute
to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative
lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air
ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and
incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment.
This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under
CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of
building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for
building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This
assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the conclusion of the
environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified,
purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer
guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings
and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer
guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality
zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each
ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or
group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate
zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the
formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
6 of 19
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building
material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2
floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including
flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any
products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins
(e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the
formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde
emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate
(µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes
(California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of
building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate
tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States
conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a
material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the
maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission
rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or
residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines
(OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of
the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the
actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather
provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed
7 of 19
for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of
flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is
less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3,
18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product
certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial
estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e.
the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired),
then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical
emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is
requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific
emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table
4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and
reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor
Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air
Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with
the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a
chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory
(https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission
rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total
formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
8 of 19
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖= 𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)
The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department
of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ
Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde
concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-
Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure
risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the
CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of
formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or
furnishings may include:
9 of 19
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or
use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation
with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with
the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how much composite
materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on
the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California
Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”,
(CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials
selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the
outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the
primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air
exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air
concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In
the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test
Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.
Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a
substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter
season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach.
A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California
Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope
construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for
10 of 19
ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air
contaminant concentrations.
The 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project – South San Francisco, CA is close to roads with
moderate to high traffic (e.g. El Camino Real, A Street, 1st Street, 2nd Street, etc.) as well as
flight paths from San Francisco International Airport. As a result of the outdoor vehicle
traffic and air traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site. The noise
analyses provided in the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration – 840 El Camino
Real Hotel Project (City of South San Francisco, 2020), reports in Table 13 “Noise
Monitoring Results”, noise levels ranging from 63.4 to 66.2 dBA Leq. However, these noise
monitoring results consist of just two 15 minute sets of measurements collected at two
locations on September 4, 2019 between 10:07 AM and 10:45 AM. To accurately assess the
existing noise levels 24-hour measurements are needed on all four sides of the project. In
addition, these noise measurements need to be adjusted to assess the impact of future traffic
volumes with the Project.
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for
mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment
with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors
to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building
interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle
traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to
the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration – 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project (City
of South Sand Francisco, 2020.), this Project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.
An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in
the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to
consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected
future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and
11 of 19
airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor
concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5
exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor
air that has air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor
concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average
concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in
all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor
quality:
- indoor formaldehyde concentrations
- outdoor air ventilation
- PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g.
hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-
low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Other projects such as the AC by
Marriott Hotel – West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main Street,
Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements stipulating
the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of
12 of 19
formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood
materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using
the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of
Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental
Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction
Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the
materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of
formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous
mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of
15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct
testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable
room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use
exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and
exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or
maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and
the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5
removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5
particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the
occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation
system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of
replacement.
13 of 19
References
AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers’
International Union of North America Local 652.
Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano,
Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 652.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San
Francisco, CA. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines.
www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1,
Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001
California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
14 of 19
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB
Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-
CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions
for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public
Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in
New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI:
10.20357/B7QC7X.
City of South San Francisco. 2020. Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration – 840 El
Camino Real Hotel Project.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes
and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242.
15 of 19
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe
Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose
Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute,
8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air
Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental
Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds
in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air
Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA.
Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of
Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes.
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM
regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure
healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM
regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde
emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood
products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in
California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor
air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants
from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products ? Definitely some,
but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase
2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the
median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which
corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure,
which is more than 11 times the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA cancer
risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide
building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood
products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that
can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for
occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the
number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario)
of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor
Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health,
17 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical
ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in
a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with
continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood
products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or
Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 119 ft2 (5.3% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of
floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for
occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite
wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or
Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or
Hardwood Plywood – 29 % (offices) and 37% (hotel rooms), or
Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite
wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring,
baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry,
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA
18 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous
occupancy.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the
resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase
using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific
formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor
spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less
formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems
capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing
of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g.
hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-
low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins. These products are now readily available and
many other projects such as the AC by Marriott Hotel – West San Jose Project and 2525
North Main Street, Santa Ana have entered into settlement agreements stipulating the use
of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980)
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 -
present.
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in
conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation
development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance
measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and
ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new
State of Washington Ecology Department building.
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air
diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion
Performance Index.
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical
emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured
ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern
and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners,
managers, hygienists, and engineers.
2
Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March,
1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced
choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated
calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage
treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication
rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to
August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and
field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies
(i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including
evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant
transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems
and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their
effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates
and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system
used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January,
1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor
correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters
on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating
Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to
October, 1979.
3
Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell
and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing
equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new
equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system
and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material
handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing
the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992)
• Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation
Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010)
- Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee
- Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper
Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
4
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ)
• Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009)
- Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012)
Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada,
August, 1990.
Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July,
1993.
Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable
Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.
Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27,
1997.
Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air
Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.
Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August,
1999.
Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.
5
Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July
2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey,
CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum,
Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air
2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the
development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air
cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an
alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air
exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during
nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65
product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department
of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls
who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality
and environmental tobacco smoke.
6
Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the
proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of
Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the
Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct
a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick
Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality
Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California
Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-
cigarettes.
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in
Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality,"
Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air
Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537,
1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation
Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers,"
ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of
Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-
1B, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen,
"Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing
and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and
K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
7
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater,
"Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny
Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air
Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air
Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three
Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592
1989.
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume
Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and
Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon
Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air,
1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler
for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot
Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different
Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy
Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor
Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air,
Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a
Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an
Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing
Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
8
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates
Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for
Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas
Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local
Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and
Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas
in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181,
ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation
Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing
Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation
and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers,
Netherlands, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions
from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building
Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96,
Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air,
Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from
PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland,
August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on
Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints
9
in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”,
submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical
Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good
For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New
California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”,
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips,
“Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB
2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from
Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU,
July, 2012.
W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai,
“Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease
Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”,
Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive
Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”,
Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
10
OTHER REPORTS:
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential
Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the
Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A
Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report
LBL-12777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and
G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted
Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air
Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An
interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen,
"Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor
Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American
Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and
J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro,
"Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from
Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
11
R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and
Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol
Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial
Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525,
Elsevier, 1984.
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of
Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August
20-24, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi-
Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office
Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office
Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental
Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides",
an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold
Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System
in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board,
March, 1990.
12
L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for
Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling
and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90,
July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”,
Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 -
Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE
Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation
Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”,
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH,
1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to
Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air
Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design &
Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in
Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and
Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution,
Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.
13
"Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,"
Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA,
May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and
Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26,
1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno,
NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and
the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality
Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System,"
Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the
Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21,
1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to
Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency
and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management
Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air
'89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
14
"Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable
Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20,
1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a
workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21,
1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando,
FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C.,
February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24,
1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991;
Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991;
Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ,
November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23,
1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems
Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property
Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium &
International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association
of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA,
September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001,
Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the
Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY,
January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991;
Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV,
December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6,
1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,
15
NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV,
March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995;
Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose
Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the
Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23,
1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November
14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual
Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness",
Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992.
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in
Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January
26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor
air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers;
Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles,
March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas,
August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993;
Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997.
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA
one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility
managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San
Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
16
“Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San
Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management
workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco,
October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose,
March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton,
November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa
Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San
Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”,
AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air
Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety
Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September
27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24,
1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA;
October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant
Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9,
1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change
Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and
Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996.
“IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual
Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
“The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene
Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
17
“ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric
Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30,
1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State
Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21,
1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE,
Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March
19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10,
1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San
Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE
Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
“Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”,
PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction
Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
“Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference,
San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda
County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28,
1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland
Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998.
“Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.
18
“Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety
Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of
California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental
Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction
Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect
Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency,
Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3,
2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint
Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County
& Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
“Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium,
sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000,
Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design &
Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”,
BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd,
2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University
of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire
Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002.
“Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX;
April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California
Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training;
Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.
19
“Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH
Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9,
2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA,
January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004;
Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA,
November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November
18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited
Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
“Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker,
Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American
Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
“Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities
Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008
Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of
Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference,
October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home
Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
“Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
20
“Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition,
Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”,
Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”,
ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21,
2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings,
Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California
Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career
Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San
Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus
Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor
Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation
System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington,
DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park
Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”,
Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis
Hotel, May 27, 2015.
21
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA
Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2,
2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution,
Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center
Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
“A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts
of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood
Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65
Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
“Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December
1, 2016.
EXHIBIT B
13 May 2020 WI No. 20-045
Rebecca L. Davis, Esq.
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2020
Review and Comment on Noise Analysis
Dear Ms. Davis,
Per your request, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the following document:
C40 El Camino Real Hotel Project, Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
(“IS/MND”, April 2020)
In this letter, we offer comments on the noise impact analysis of the IS/MND. We find the analysis to
be flawed for multiple reasons which results in an inappropriate conclusion that construction noise
impacts will be less than significant. As will be developed in detail below, a proper analysis using
data provided in the IS/MND, the noise model utilized by the IS/MND, and the City of South San
Francisco (CSSF) Municipal Code results in a determination that the noise impact will be significant.
In addition, an analysis of the increase in local noise levels during construction – something not done
in the IS/MND – also indicates that the noise impact will be significant.
Wilson Ihrig has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our 54
years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact
Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical
consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as
Environmental Noise Model (ENM), Traffic Noise Model (TNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In
short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies
prepared by others.
1. Construction Noise Analysis Flawed Leading to Incorrect Assessment
The construction noise analysis is presented in Section 4.13 of the IS/MND. The analysis is conducted
using a model promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration called the Roadway Construction
Noise Model (RCNM). This is a commonly used model and appropriate for this purpose. The
construction noise analysis analyzes the noise levels at two receptors, (i) the neighboring All Season
840 El Camino Real Hotel IS/MND
Review and Comment on Noise Analysis
2
Lodge south of the project site and (ii) the nearest private residences east of the project site. The
analysis is based upon the closest distance from the “anticipated edge of the construction site” to the
buildings, stated to be 20 feet and 70 feet, respectively, to the hotel and the homes. [IS/MND at
p. 101]
The results of the RCNM calculations are presented in Table 15 of the IS/MND [at p. 102], and because
all of the reported levels are less than 90 dBA, the impact from construction noise is found to be less
than significant. We find this analysis to be flawed in two respects.
The noise regulation that the IS/MND utilizes for the threshold of significance is Section
8.32.050(d)(2):
The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB.
This regulation does not specify which noise descriptor is subject 90 dBA limit.1 Appendix NOI
includes RCNM calculations of both maximum and average noise levels. The numbers relied upon in
the body of the IS/MND, and included in Table 15, are the average noise levels rather than the
maximum noise levels.2 This is inconsistent with the noise ordinance, which does not limit the
average noise level, but rather prohibits any noise above 90 dBA. The IS/MND itself relies upon
average noise levels for its analysis as presented in Table 15. [IS/MND at p. 102] Thus, the IS/MND
is flawed in that it misinterprets the CSSF Municipal Code.
A second flaw associated with the application of the CSSF Municipal Code is that the IS/MND
calculation is made at the distance to various building façades rather than to the relevant property
planes, even though the Municipal Code plainly states that the point of assessment is to be “any point
outside of the property plane of the project”. In the case of the private residences on A Street, the
IS/MND uses a distance of 70 feet, however, the site plan in the IS/MND clearly shows that the
proposed hotel will be only 15 feet from the property plane. [ISMND Figure 3 at p. 8]
The RCNM formula for calculating the maximum noise level from a single piece of equipment at
distance D is
Lmax(D) = Lmax,reference(50ft) + 20log10(50ft/D) D = distance in feet
1 Section 8.32.020, Definitions, Subsection (a) of the SSF Municipal Code establishes that “All references
to dB in this chapter utilize the A-level weighting scale.” Decibels so weighted are designated by
international standards as “dBA”.
2 Despite the statement on page 101 that “Table 15 shows the maximum expected construction noise
levels at the nearest sensitive receptor . . .”, the data in Table 15 are actually the average construction
noise levels (“Leq”), not the maximum levels (“Lmax”). The denotation “Leq” comes from the fact that the
steady sound level that has the same amount of energy as the time-varying levels of the measurement
period is called the equivalent level. Technically, this is the energy-averaged noise level, but, for all
intents and purposes, it may simply be thought of as the average noise level.
840 El Camino Real Hotel IS/MND
Review and Comment on Noise Analysis
3
For example, as the RCNM data sheet for the Demolition phase (IS/MND, Appendix NOI) shows, the
maximum noise level for an Excavator at 20 ft is
Lmax(20ft) = 80.7 dBA + 20log10(50ft/20ft) = 88.7 dBA 3
If this same calculation is made at the distance from the proposed hotel to the residential property
plane, 15 feet, the maximum noise level is calculated to be
Lmax(15ft) = 80.7 dBA + 20log10(50ft/15/ft) = 91.2 dBA
The maximum noise level during any phase of construction is determined by the single loudest piece
of equipment. Following are the maximum noise levels for each phase of construction calculated
using information taken directly from the IS/MND and the 15-foot distance from the proposed hotel
building to the property plane:
Phase Loudest Equipment Max Level
at 50 ft
Max Level
at 15 ft
Demolition Excavator 80.7 dBA 91.2 dBA
Grading Compactor (ground) 83.2 dBA 93.7 dBA
Site Prep Compactor (ground) 83.2 dBA 93.7 dBA
Construction Crane & Generator 80.6 dBA 91.1 dBA
Paving Paver 77.2 dBA 87.7 dBA
As can be seen, the maximum noise level will exceed the CSSF Municipal Code limit at the residential
property plane for all but the last phase of construction. Because 90 dBA limit at the property plane
is the adopted threshold of significance, construction noise should identified as a significant noise
impact.
2. Construction Noise Analysis Failed to Assess Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
A CEQA noise analysis is supposed to assess whether a project would generate a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. This is not done in the
IS/MND, however, there is sufficient information in the IS/MND for me to do a cursory analysis here.
The preparers of the IS/MND made noise measurements at the “Back of project site, adjacent to the
back of A Street Residences.” The equivalent (average) noise level was 63.4 dBA Leq, and the primary
noise source was noted as “Traffic on El Camino Real”. [IS/MND Table 13 at p. 97] Careful study of
Street View photographs in Google Maps shows that the project site elevation is higher than the
residential backyards because it is built up behind a retaining wall. The elevation data in Google
3 This calculation was done for the All Season Lodge which the IS/MND states is 20 feet from the
nearest construction.
840 El Camino Real Hotel IS/MND
Review and Comment on Noise Analysis
4
Earth indicates that the retaining wall is about 10 ft tall, and this accords with the Street View photos
of the retaining wall taken from A Street. Because there is a large, sharp change in elevation between
the project site and the residential backyard, the traffic noise from El Camino Real is shielded by what
is effectively an 8-foot sound barrier wall (see sketch below). It is reasonable to assume that the
difference is 5 dB, the minimal amount for a wall that breaks the line-of-sight between a noise source
and a receiver by a few feet. With the inclusion of the 5 dB noise reduction associated with the
elevation change, a reasonable estimate of the existing ambient noise level in the backyards is
58.4 dBA Leq.
The noise attenuation provided by the elevation change will not be as pronounce for the construction
equipment for two reasons: (i) it will operate much nearer to the property plane, and (ii) the main
noise source is the top of the exhaust stack which is typically 7 to 8 feet high (to minimize workers
breathing exhaust fumes). Given these two conditions, the exhaust stack will be visible from the
backyards for much of the time.
For the assessment of the noise level increase over the existing ambient, it is reasonable to use the
average noise level. Calculations made with the RCNM using a distance of 80 ft (the distance from
the center of the project site to the center of the backyards) and accounting for the “usage factor” (the
percentage of time the machinery is operating) yields
Phase Avg (Leq)
Noise Level
Increase Above
Existing Ambient
Demolition 74.4 dBA 16.0 dB
Grading 75.4 dBA 17.0 dB
Site Prep 77.2 dBA 18.8 dB
Construction 76.9 dBA 18.5 dB
Paving 70.1 dBA 11.7 dB
Elevation of El Camino Real & Site
Elevation of Backyard
Effective wall height:
8 feet
840 El Camino Real Hotel IS/MND
Review and Comment on Noise Analysis
5
As the IS/MND states, “an increase . . . of 10 dBA sounds twice . . . loud”. [IS/MND at p. 96] The
IS/MND does not state that the character of a sound is also a factor in how noises are perceived. In
this case, the construction equipment will make noises in the area for 18 months that are not typical.
Finally, it is common practice to use 10 dB as the threshold of significance for temporary increases
in ambient noise levels. As the table above indicates, this threshold will be exceeded for all phases of
construction. Furthermore, it will exceed 15 dB for four of the five construction phases, the majority
of the project development time. Therefore, the temporary increase in ambient noise levels brought
about by the construction of the project should be identified as a significant noise impact.
* * * * *
Please contact me if you have any questions about these comments.
Very truly yours,
WILSON IHRIG
Derek L. Watry
Principal
Wilson Ihrig – Derek Watry Resume – Page 1
DEREK WATRY
Principal
Mr. Watry is experienced in all aspects of environmental noise issues, having conducted extensive
field measurements, prepared EIR/EIS sections, helped resolve complex community noise issue,
established acceptability criteria, and studied meteorological effects on sound transmission.
He is well versed in the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. His experience includes responding to
community noise complaints that can be miles from transit noise, construction noise, and low-
frequency music noise. He has made numerous presentations at public meetings, conducted
technical seminars on outdoor noise propagation, and served as the acoustical expert for several
legal actions. These experiences have given him a thorough understanding of the technical, public
relations, and political aspects of environmental noise and vibration compliance work.
Education
• M.B.A., Saint Mary's College of California, Moraga, California
• M.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley
• B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of California at San Diego
Relevant Project Experience
San Francisco Department of Public Works, Environmental Services On-Call
Several task orders with prime consultant. Recent projects have been the Northshore Main
Improvement Project, design noise mitigation for a recently constructed SOMA West Skate Park,
and a variety of other construction noise and vibration monitoring tasks.
City of Fremont Environmental Services On Call (Since 2004)
Providing oversight of and acoustical analysis for a variety of task orders. Work tasks primarily
focus on noise insulation and vibration control design compliance for new residential projects and
peer review other consultant’s projects.
King City Silva Ranch Annexation EIR
Conducted the noise portion of the EIR and assessed the suitability of the project areas for the intended
development. Work included a reconnaissance of existing noise sources and receptors in and around
the project areas, and long-term noise measurements at key locations.
Loch Lomond Marina EIR, San Rafael
Examined traffic noise impacts on existing residences. Provided the project with acoustical analyses
and reports to satisfy the requirements of Title 24.
Mare Island Dredge and Material Disposal, Vallejo
EIR/EIS analysis of noise from planned dredged material off-loading operations.
San Francisco Clean Water Program – Richmond Transport Tunnel
Environmental compliance monitoring of vibration during soft tunnel mining and boring, cut-and-
cover trenching for sewer lines, hard rock tunnel blasting and site remediation. Work involved
long-term monitoring of general construction activity, special investigations of groundborne
vibration from pumps and bus generated ground vibration, and interaction with the public
(homeowners). Construction methods monitored included tunneling, pile driving, heavy equipment
operation, and rock blasting.
Wilson Ihrig – Derek Watry Resume – Page 2
San Francisco Department of Public Works, 525 Golden Gate Avenue Demolition
Noise and vibration monitoring and consultation during demolition of a multi-story office building
next to Federal, State, and Municipal Court buildings.
San Francisco Department of Public Works, 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Center
Technical assistance on issues relating to the demolition and construction work including vibration
monitoring, developing specification and reviewing/recommending appropriate methods and
equipment for demolition of Old Emergency Center.
Patterson Ranch EIR, Fremont
Conducted noise and vibration portion of the EIR.
Tyco Electronics Annual Noise Compliance Study, Menlo Park
Conducted annual noise compliance monitoring. Provided letter critiquing the regulatory
requirements and recommending improvements.
BART SFO Extension - Construction Vibration and Noise Monitoring
Environmental compliance monitoring of noise and vibration during cut-and-cover construction of
BART subway structure. Work included extensive monitoring of ground vibration at buildings and
structures in close proximity to vibratory pile driving activity to ascertain compliance with
construction specification limits.
Golden Gate Park Concourse Underground Garage, San Francisco
Noise and vibration testing during underground garage construction to monitor for residences and
an old sandstone statue during pile driving.
Fourth Street Bridge Rehabilitation, San Francisco
Construction noise, vibration, and underwater monitoring and support. Work included underwater
noise measurements during pile driving and subsequent lab analysis, and ground-to-water transfer
mobility measurements and subsequent analysis to predict underwater acoustic pressure levels
during concrete abutment demolition.
Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility, San Jose
Noise study of impacts for new maintenance and operations facility built next to existing residential
neighborhood.
Relevant Expert Consultant Experience
Expert consultant review of the noise studies for the following projects:
Star Concrete Batch Plant Project
Mountain Peak Winery Expansion Project
The Shops at Austin Creek Development
Monterey Downs and Monterey Horse Park Development
Atascadero Del Rio Road Commercial Area Development
WinCo Vallejo Development
Walmart Tehachapi Development
Riverwalk Marketplace, Phase II, Development
Walmart Rohnert Park Expansion
EXHIBIT C
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
May 11, 2020
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
Dear Ms. Davis,
We have reviewed the April 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the 840 El
Camino Real Hotel Project (“Project”) located in the City of South San Francisco (“City”). The Project
proposes to construct a hotel with 95 guest rooms and 71 parking spaces, including 69 spaces in a
subterranean parking garage and 2 surface parking spaces, on the 0.46-acre Project site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk,
and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction
and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated
CEQA evaluation should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health
risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
Air Quality Failure to Evaluate Impacts from Project Operational Emissions
The IS/MND fails to evaluate the proposed Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions. As a
result, the proposed Project’s air quality impact is inadequately addressed. Until an updated analysis
quantifies and compares the proposed Project’s operational emissions to the correct BAAQMD
thresholds, the proposed Project should not be approved.
Regarding the proposed Project’s operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the IS/MND states:
2
“The BAAQMD operational screening level size for hotels is 489 guest rooms. The proposed
project includes 95 guest rooms and therefore is below the screening size. As a result, per
BAAQMD guidance, a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s criteria air pollutant
emissions is not necessary, and project operation would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be
less than significant” (p. 37).
As the excerpt above demonstrates, the IS/MND claims that the proposed hotel is less than the
BAAQMD’s screening level size, and thus, does not need to evaluate the criteria pollutant emissions.
However, review of the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines reveals that this is incorrect.
Specifically, according to the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, this operational criteria
pollutant screening size only applies to operational NOx emissions (see excerpt below).1
As you can see in the excerpt above, the BAAQMD’s operational criteria pollutant screening size for
hotels of 489 rooms only applies to Project NOX emissions. As such, we can reasonably conclude that the
proposed Project’s operational CO, PM2.5, PM10, and SOX emissions were not previously considered by
the IS/MND. As a result, an updated air quality analysis, including an analysis of all of the Project’s
criteria air pollutant emissions, should be prepared in a Project-specific EIR. Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2.2 CalEEMod
provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type,
meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type.
If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that such changes be
justified by substantial evidence.3 Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's
construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output
files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant
emissions and make known which default values were changed as well as provide justification for the
values selected.4
1 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p.
3-2, Table 3-1.
2 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
3 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 1, 9.
4 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, fn 1, p. 11, 12 – 13. A key feature
3
Review of the Project’s air modeling demonstrates that the IS/MND underestimates emissions
associated with Project activities. As previously stated, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on air
pollutant emissions calculated using CalEEMod. When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files,
provided as Appendix AQ to the IS/MND, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with
information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions
are underestimated. An updated EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that
adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and
regional air quality.
Unsubstantiated Utility Company & Associated Intensity Factors
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the utility company was modeled as
“User Defined” with a manually-inputted CO2 intensity factor of 105.93, a CH4 intensity factor of 0 and
an N20 intensity factor of 0 (see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 148, 180).
Furthermore, according to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the CO2, CH4, and
N20 intensity factors are a result of the Project’s use of “Peninsula Clean Energy” (Appendix AQ, pp. 149,
181). However, this is incorrect for two reasons. First, the IS/MND fails to provide a source for the
intensity factors assumed by the model. Second, the IS/MND states that PG&E would provide natural
gas to the Project site, while Peninsula Clean Energy would provide electric supply (p. 22). Thus, it is
incorrect to assume the only utility company would be Peninsula Clean Energy. As a result, we cannot
verify the intensity factors used in the model. This presents an issue, as CalEEMod the CO2, CH4, and N20
intensity factors to calculate the Project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions associated with electricity
use. 5 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the Project’s CO2 intensity factor, the model
may underestimate the Project’s GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Schedule
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model included several changes to
the CalEEMod default construction period for the Project (see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 150,
182).
of the CalEEMod program is the “remarks” feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by
a “user defined” value. These remarks are included in the report.
5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: CalEEMod.com, p. 17.
4
As you can see in the excerpt above, each phase of the construction period was increased from the
default. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.6 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification
provided for these changes is: “Applicant provided schedule” (Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181). Furthermore,
the IS/MND states: “The construction schedule and list of construction equipment were based on
applicant-provided data” (p. 36). However, this fails to justify the changes to the construction schedule,
as the IS/MND fails to specify what the construction schedule would be. Thus, these changes are
unsubstantiated. This presents an issue, as spreading out construction emissions over a longer period
than is expected results in an underestimation of the maximum daily emissions associated with
construction. Thus, the construction schedule assumed by the model is incorrect, and as a result, the
model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Horsepower, Load Factor, and
Unit Amount
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that several changes were made to the
Project’s anticipated off-road construction equipment horsepower, load factor, and unit amount values
(see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 150, 180).
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.7 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification
provided for these changes is: “Applicant-provided list” (Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181). Furthermore, the
construction equipment list used in the Project’s CalEEMod model is consistent with the construction
equipment list used in the Fuel Consumption Calculations (Appendix NRG, pp. 625). However, the
IS/MND fails to disclose the “Applicant-provided” construction equipment list in order to justify these
changes, as well as the use of the revised construction equipment list in the fuel consumption
6 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
7 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
5
calculations. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and
should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Number of Worker and Vendor Trips
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that several changes were made to the
Project’s anticipated number of vendor and worker trips (see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 150,
180).
As you can see in the excerpt above, several vendor and worker trip numbers were reduced, resulting in
a net decrease of trips required for construction. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide
requires any changes to model defaults be justified.8 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-
Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Applicant provided” (Appendix AQ,
pp. 149, 181). Furthermore, the number of worker and vendor trips used in the Project’s CalEEMod
model is consistent with the number of worker and vendor trips used in the Fuel Consumption
Calculations (Appendix NRG, pp. 626). However, the IS/MND fails to mention or justify these changes. As
a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Change to Indoor Water Use Rate
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project’s indoor water use rate was
manually decreased from 2,409,843.15 gallons per year (“gpy”) to 1,927,875 gpy (see excerpt below)
(Appendix AQ, pp. 150, 182).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the indoor water use rate was reduced by approximately 20%. As
previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for
these changes is: “20% reduction for 2016 CALGreen” (Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181). Furthermore, the
IS/MND states:
8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
9 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
6
“Modeling of GHG emissions from water consumption and wastewater generation includes a 20
percent reduction in indoor water use to account for compliance with CALGreen, use of low-
flow fixtures, and installation of a water-efficient irrigation system” (p. 71).
However, these justifications are insufficient for three reasons. First, the IS/MND fails to indicate what
specific measures would be implemented to allow the Project to achieve a 20% reduction to its indoor
water use rate. Second, water use reductions are already accounted for by the model’s water-related
operational mitigation measures (Appendix AQ, pp. 178, 212). By including both the water-related
operational mitigation measures, and a 20% reduction of the Project’s initial indoor water use rate, the
model is double-counting the water use reduction. Third, this change is unsubstantiated. Without
disclosing the calculations used to estimate the 20% reduction, we cannot verify that this will actually be
achieved on the Project site. This presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the indoor water use rate
inputted to calculate the Project’s GHG emissions associated with supplying and treating water and
wastewater.10 Thus, by underestimating the Project’s indoor water use rate, the model may
underestimate the Project’s GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Unsubstantiated Application of Mobile-, Energy-, and Water-Related Operational Mitigation
Measures
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model incorrectly includes several
mobile-, energy-, and water-related operational mitigation measures. As a result, the Project’s
operational emissions may be underestimated, and the model should not be relied upon to determine
Project significance.
First, the Project’s CalEEMod output files reveal that the model included the following mobile-related
mitigation measures: “Improve Destination Accessibility” and “Increase Transit Accessibility” (see
excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 173, 206).
Second, the Project’s CalEEMod output files reveal that the model included the following energy-related
mitigation measures: “Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated” and “Install Energy Efficient
Appliances” (see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 175, 208).
10 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 44
7
Third, review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model included the following
water-related operational mitigation measures: “Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet,” “Install Low Flow
Kitchen Faucet,” “Install Low Flow Toilet,” “Install Low Flow Shower,” and “Use Water Efficient Irrigation
System” (see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 178, 212).
However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned mobile-, energy-, and water-related operational
mitigation measures is unsubstantiated. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide,
“The mitigation measures included in CalEEMod are largely based on the CAPCOA Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf)
document. The CAPCOA measure numbers are provided next to the mitigation measures in
CalEEMod to assist the user in understanding each measure by referencing back to the CAPCOA
document.”11
Review of CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures document demonstrates that the
IS/MND fails to substantiate several of the mitigation measures included in the model (see table below).
Measure Consistency
CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures12
Mobile Measures
Measure LUT-4 Improve Destination Accessibility
“The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on
changes in distance to key destinations versus the
standard suburban distance…This distance is used as a
baseline to mirror the distance to destinations reflected
in the land uses for the ITE Trip Generation Manual,
which is the baseline method for determining VMT.”
Here, while the “User Entered Comments &
Non-Default Data” table attempts to
substantiate this measure by stating:
“Distance to downtown South SF,” the
justification fails to provide the actual
distance (Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181).
Furthermore, the IS/MND states:
“Modeling of transportation-related GHG
11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 53.
12 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.” CAPCOA, August 2010, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf.
8
The following information needs to be provided by the
Project Applicant:
• Distance to downtown or major job center
emissions utilized the “Increase Destination
Accessibility” and “Increase Transit
Accessibility” features in CalEEMod to
account for the project site’s proximity to
downtown South San Francisco and to the
El Camino Real/ Southwood Drive stop for
San Mateo County Transit District
(SamTrans) ECR line” (p. 71). However, this
again fails to provide the distance to
downtown or major job center or address
the standard suburban distance. Thus, the
IS/MND fails to demonstrate consistency
with the measure, and its inclusion in the
model is unsubstantiated.
Measure LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility
“The use of transit results in a model shift and therefore
reduced VMT…The project description should include, at
a minimum, the following design features:
• A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-
frequency bus service located within a 5-10
minute walk (or roughly ¼ mile from stop to
edge of development), and/or
o A rail station located within a 20
minute walk (or roughly ½ mile from
station to edge of development)
• Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service
connecting a high percentage of regional
destinations
• Neighborhood designed for walking and
cycling”
The following information needs to be provided by the
Project Applicant:
• Distance to transit station in project
Here, the “User Entered Comments & Non-
Default Data” table attempts to
substantiate this measure by stating:
“SamTrans ECR stop” (Appendix AQ, pp.
149, 181). Furthermore, the IS/MND
indicates that the Project is approximately
150 feet from a bus stop that serves
SamTrans routes ECR and 28 (p. 72).
However, while the IS/MND and associated
documents discuss a nearby transit stop,
they fail to address the distance to this stop
or the remaining two of the three minimum
project design features required: fast,
frequent, and reliable transit service
connecting regional destinations and
neighborhood designed for walking and
cycling. Thus, the IS/MND fails to
demonstrate consistency with the measure,
and its inclusion in the model is
unsubstantiated.
Energy Measures
9
Measure AE-1 Alternative Energy Generation
“Using electricity generated from renewable or carbon-
neutral power systems displaces electricity demand
which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility.”
The following information needs to be provided by the
Project Applicant:
• Total annual electricity demand (kWh)
• Annual amount of electricity to be provided by
the on-site power system (kWh) or percent of
total electricity demand to be provided by the
on-site power system (%)
• Carbon intensity of local utility and on-site
power system if not carbon neutral Baseline
Here, while the “User Entered Comments &
Non-Default Data” table attempts to
substantiate this measure by stating: “50
kW system,” the justification fails to
provide the total annual electricity demand
or the carbon intensity of local utility and
on-site power system (Appendix AQ, pp.
149, 181). In addition, the IS/MND fails to
disclose how this measure will be
implemented, monitored, and enforced on
the Project site. Thus, the IS/MND fails to
demonstrate consistency with the measure,
and its inclusion in the model is
unsubstantiated.
Measure BE-4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances
“Using energy-efficient appliances reduces a building’s
energy consumption as well as the associated GHG
emissions from natural gas combustion and electricity
production. To take credit for this mitigation measure,
the Project Applicant (or contracted builder) would need
to ensure that energy efficient appliances are installed.
For residential dwellings, typical builder-supplied
appliances include refrigerators and dishwashers.
Clothes washers and ceiling fans would be applicable if
the builder supplied them. For commercial land uses,
energy-efficient refrigerators have been evaluated for
grocery stores. See Mitigation Method section on how
project applicant may quantify additional building types
and appliances.”
The following information needs to be provided by the
Project Applicant:
• Number of dwelling units and/or size of grocery
store
• Climate Zone
• Housing Type (if residential)
• Utility provider
• Total natural gas demand (kBTU or therms) per
dwelling unit or per square foot
Here, the “User Entered Comments & Non-
Default Data” table fail to provide a
justification for the inclusion of this
measure (Appendix AQ, pp. 149, 181).
While the IS/MND states that “[t]he project
would also include energy-efficient
appliances,” the IS/MND fails to indicate
the total natural gas demand of the Project
or the types of energy efficient appliances
to be installed. Thus, the IS/MND fails to
demonstrate consistency with the measure,
and its inclusion in the model is
unsubstantiated.
10
• Types of energy efficient appliances to be
installed (refrigerator, dishwasher, or clothes
washer for residential land uses and
refrigerators for grocery stores)
Water Measures
Measure WUW-1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures
“Installing low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures in
buildings reduces water demand, energy demand, and
associated indirect GHG emissions.”
The following information needs to be provided by the
Project Applicant:
• Total expected indoor water demand, without
installation of low-flow or high-efficiency
fixtures (million gallons), AND
• Total expected indoor water demand, after
installation of low-flow or high-efficiency
fixtures (million gallons), OR
• Commitment to low-flow or high-efficiency
water fixtures (toilets, showerheads, sink
faucets, dishwashers, clothes washers, or all of
the above)
Here, no justification was provided in the
“User Entered Comments & Non-Default
Data” table. The IS/MND states: “Modeling
of GHG emissions from water consumption
and wastewater generation includes a 20
percent reduction in indoor water use to
account for compliance with CALGreen, use
of low-flow fixtures, and installation of a
water-efficient irrigation system” (p. 71).
However, the IS/MND fails to provide the
total expected indoor water demand,
without and without the installation or low-
low water fixtures, and a commitment to
low-flow water fixtures. Thus, the IS/MND
fails to demonstrate consistency with the
measure, and its inclusion in the model is
unsubstantiated.
Measure WUW-4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape
Irrigation Systems
“Using water-efficient landscape irrigation techniques
such as “smart” irrigation technology reduces outdoor
water demand, energy demand, and the associated
GHG emissions.”
The following information needs to be provided by the
Project Applicant:
• Total expected outdoor water demand, without
installation of smart landscape irrigation
controller (million gallons).
Here, no justification was provided in the
“User Entered Comments & Non-Default
Data” table. The IS/MND states: “Modeling
of GHG emissions from water consumption
and wastewater generation includes a 20
percent reduction in indoor water use to
account for compliance with CALGreen, use
of low-flow fixtures, and installation of a
water-efficient irrigation system” (p. 71).
However, the IS/MND fails to provide the
total expected outdoor water demand or
the Project-specific percent reduction in
outdoor water demand. Thus, the IS/MND
11
• (Optional) Project-specific percent reduction in
outdoor water demand, after installation of
smart landscape irrigation controller. Percent
reduction must be verifiable. Otherwise, use
the default value of 6.1%.
fails to demonstrate consistency with the
measure, and its inclusion in the model is
unsubstantiated.
Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact
In an effort to determine the proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions, we prepared
an updated CalEEMod model for the Project, using the Project-specific information provided by the
IS/MND. In our updated model, we selected “Pacific Gas & Electric” as the utility company and left the
default intensity factors, construction schedule, and construction equipment list. We also omitted the
unsubstantiated operational mitigation measures and changes to worker trips, vendor trips, and indoor
water use rates. Our updated analysis demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related VOC and
NOX emissions exceed the 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) thresholds set by the BAAQMD (see table
below).13
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Model VOC NOx
SWAPE 290 252
BAAQMD Regional Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes
When modeled correctly, the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOX emissions exceed the
BAAQMD threshold of 54 lbs/day. Thus, our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a
potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the IS/MND.
As a result, a updated CEQA evaluation should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the
potential air quality and health risk impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project’s health risk impact would be less than significant
without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment (“HRA”) (p. 38).
While the IS/MND fails to address the omission of a construction HRA, it attempts to justify the omission
of an operational HRA by stating:
“Common sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high-
volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating
facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities (BAAQMD
13 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017 ,
available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-
pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1.
12
2017c). The proposed project does not involve any of these uses; therefore, it is not considered
a common source of TACs...Therefore, project operation would not generate a substantial
amount of TAC emissions that could affect nearby sensitive receptors, and impacts would be
less than significant” (p. 39).
However, this justification and subsequent less than significant impact conclusion is incorrect for two
reasons.
First, the omission of a quantified construction HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance
published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization
responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA
released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments.14 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of
an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human carcinogen, through the
exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a construction period of approximately 561 days
(Appendix AQ, pp. 155, 188). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at
least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.15 Therefore, per OEHHA
guidelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction should have been
evaluated by the IS/MND.
Second, simply because the IS/MND claims that the Project would not involve land uses known to be
common sources of TACs does not justify the omission of an operational HRA. Once construction of the
Project is complete, the Project will operate for a long period of time. According to the IS/MND’s Traffic
Impact Study (“TIS”), provided as Appendix TRA to the IS/MND, Project operation will generate
approximately 344 daily vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to
expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (Appendix TRA, p. 22). The OEHHA document
recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of
the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual
cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).16 Even though we were not provided
with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at
least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risks from Project operation also
should have been evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2-month and 6-month
requirements set forth by OEHHA. This guidance reflects the most recent health risk policy, and as such,
we recommend that an updated assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from Project
construction and operation be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project.
14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html
15 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-18
16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15
13
Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified HRA to nearby, existing
sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation, the IS/MND fails to compare the
excess health risk to the BAAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.17 Thus, the IS/MND
should not conclude less than significant health risk impacts resulting from Project construction and
operation without quantifying emissions to compare to the proper threshold. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts
In an effort to demonstrate the potential health risk posed by Project construction and operation to
nearby, existing sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening-level HRA. The results of our
assessment, as described below, demonstrate that the Project may result in a significant impact not
previously identified or addressed in the IS/MND.
In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening
level air quality dispersion model.18 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the
OEHHA 19 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”)20 guidance as the
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA
utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind
concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an
unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health-related impact to
residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE CalEEMod
output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure
begins during the third trimester stage of life. SWAPE’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction
activities will generate approximately 36 pounds of DPM over the 172-day construction period. The
AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward
concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in
equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate
by the following equation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 36.2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 172 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 0.00110 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 172-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed
17 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
18 U.S. EPA (April 2011) AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
19 Supra, fn 20.
20 CAPCOA (July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.
14
that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational
DPM for an additional 27.88 years, approximately. The Project’s operational CalEEMod emissions,
calculated by subtracting the existing emissions from the proposed Project, indicate that operational
activities will generate approximately 44 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�= 43.8 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 0.00063 g/s. Construction and
operational activity was simulated as a 0.46-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions
of 58 by 32 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust
stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one
and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban
meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average
concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.21
Using Google Earth, we found that the closest receptor is located approximately 2 meters east of the
Project site. However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed
receptor is located approximately 25 meters from the Project site. The single-hour concentration
estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 9.961 µg/m3 DPM at approximately
25 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average
concentration of 0.9961 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-
hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 5.679 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 25 meters
downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average
concentration of 0.5679 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA. Consistent with the default CalEEMod construction schedule, the annualized average
concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the
first 1.87 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized averaged concentration for
operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of
the infantile stage of life, and the entire child and adult stages of life (2 – 16 years) and (16 – 30 years),
respectively.
21 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” EPA, 1992, available
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf; see also “Risk Assessment
Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36.
15
Consistent with OEHHA 22, as recommended by SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used
Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASF”) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the
carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.23, 24, 25, 26 According to this guidance, the quantified cancer risk
should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two
years of life (infant) as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 – 16 years).
We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young
children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from
2003. This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by
BAAQMD, the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the
state. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile
breathing rates for infants.27 Finally, according to BAAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At
Home (“FAH”) value of 0.85 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors, 0.72 for child receptors, and 0.73
for the adult receptors.28 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of
25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Activity Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
Cancer
Risk
without
ASFs*
ASF Cancer Risk
with ASFs*
Construction 0.25 0.9961 361 1.2E-06 10 1.2E-05
22 “The Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment issued updated guidance for the preparation of health
risk assessments in March 2015 (OEHHA 2015)” (p. 5.2-29).
23 “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.
24 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058).” SCAQMD,
March 2019, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment-
letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 4.
25 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p.
56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2011,
available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approac
h.ashx, p. 65, 86.
26 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance
Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf, p. 8,
20, 24.
27 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-
assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19.
“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
28 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines.” BAAQMD, January 2016, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/rules-and-regs/workshops/2016/reg-2-5/hra-
guidelines_clean_jan_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
16
3rd Trimester
Duration 0.25 1.2E-06
3rd
Trimester
Exposure
1.2E-05
Construction 1.87 0.9961 1090 2.6E-05 10 2.6E-04
Operation 0.13 0.5679 1090 1.0E-06 10 1.0E-05
Infant Exposure
Duration 2.00 2.7E-05 Infant
Exposure 2.7E-04
Operation 14.00 0.5679 572 4.9E-05 3 1.5E-04
Child Exposure
Duration 14.00 4.9E-05 Child
Exposure 1.5E-04
Operation 14.00 0.5679 261 2.3E-05 1 2.3E-05
Adult Exposure
Duration 14.00 2.3E-05 Adult
Exposure 2.3E-05
Lifetime
Exposure
Duration
30.00 1.0E-04 Lifetime
Exposure 4.5E-04
* We, along with CARB and BAAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd
trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of Project
construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 23, 150, 270, and 12 in
one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years),
utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 450 in one million. The 3rd trimester, infant, child, adult,
and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Utilizing age
sensitivity factors is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent
guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity
factors are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for
health risk analysis. Regardless, the excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the
third trimester of pregnancy at the MEIR, located approximately 25 meters away, over the course of
Project construction and operation, without age sensitivity factors, are approximately 23, 49, 27, and 1.2
in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at
the MEIR, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 100 in one million. The infant, child, adult,
and lifetime cancer risks, without age sensitivity factors, exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one
million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. While we
recommend the use of age sensitivity factors, health risk impacts exceed the BAAQMD threshold
regardless.
An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the
health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to
17
be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 29 The purpose of the screening-level
construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed
Project’s emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that
construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact,
when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our
screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City should prepare an EIR with an
HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential
health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified air
pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and
accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate annual GHG emissions of 577 metric tons of CO2
equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/yr”), which would be less than the BAAQMD threshold of 660 MT
CO2e/yr (p. 72, 73). Furthermore, the IS/MND concludes that, with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GHG-1, the Project would be consistent with the City of South San Francisco CAP (p. 74). As a
result, the IS/MND concludes that the Project’s GHG impact would be less than significant. However,
this is incorrect for four reasons:
(1) The IS/MND’s GHG analysis is incorrect and unsubstantiated;
(2) The City of South San Francisco CAP cannot be relied upon to determine Project significance;
and
(3) Updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.
1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated GHG Analysis
The IS/MND’s analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model, as discussed above. This
is incorrect, as the IS/MND’s air model underestimates the Project’s GHG emissions. As a result, the
IS/MND’s GHG significance determination should not be relied upon.
2) The City’s CAP is Inapplicable to the Project
Second, the City’s CAP is out of date and inapplicable to the proposed Project. According to the IS/MND,
“The City’s CAP is not a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy because it does not establish a 2030
GHG emissions reduction target consistent with SB 32” (p. 72).
Thus, the City’s CAP lacks a GHG emissions reduction target consistent with SB 32 and cannot be used as
a GHG Reduction Strategy to determine the significance of the Project’s GHG impact. As a result, the
Project’s consistency with the City’s CAP should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
3) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact
29 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5
18
Applicable thresholds and modeling demonstrate that the proposed Project may result in a potentially
significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. The CalEEMod output
files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project-specific information as disclosed in the IS/MND, disclose
annual operational GHG emissions of approximately 998 MT CO2e/year (sum of area, energy, mobile,
waste, and water-related emissions). When we compare the Project’s operational GHG emissions to the
BAAQMD bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year, as cited by the IS/MND, we find that the Project’s
GHG emissions exceed the threshold (see table below).
SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Area 0.003
Energy 621.496
Mobile 343.272
Waste 26.156
Water 7.362
Total 998.290
Threshold 660
Exceed? Yes
As demonstrated in the table above, the proposed Project would generate approximately 998 MT
CO2e/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD’s 660 MT CO2e/year threshold (p. 72). Hence, a service
population analysis is warranted. According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service
population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the
project.”30 As the Project does not propose any residential land uses, we assumed that the Project will
not result in any new residents. For the hotel land use, the IS/MND failed to provide the estimated
number of employees. As a result, we used the United States Department of Energy’s square foot per
employee value (“SF/employee”) of 1,124 for “Lodging.”31 Thus, we estimate that the Project’s number
of employees would be 123, and the Project’s service population would be 123.32 When dividing the
Project’s GHG emissions by a service population value of 123 people, we find that the Project would
emit approximately 8.1 MT CO2e/SP/year.33 The BAAQMD regularly utilizes a substantial progress
population efficiency target goal of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year for target year 2030.34 In addition, the IS/MND
30 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf.
31 “BUILDING AREA PER EMPLOYEE BY BUSINESS TYPE.” May 2008, City of Davis, available at:
https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=4579.
32 Calculated: number of residents + number of employees = 0 + 123 = 123.
33 Calculated: (998 MT CO2e/year) / (123 service population) = (8.1 MT CO2e/SP/year).
34 “Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016,
available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 40; see also Santa Clara University
Housing Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment, October 2019, available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=45718; see also Facebook Campus Expansion Project Draft
19
cites to the 2020 BAAQMD service population efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/year (p. 71). Using
these thresholds, we find that the Project would result in a potentially significant GHG impact not
previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND (see table below).
SWAPE Service Population Efficiency Analysis
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Annual GHG Emissions 998.3
Service Population 123
Service Population Efficiency 8.1
Threshold 4.6
Exceed? Yes
Threshold 2.6
Exceed? Yes
As the table above demonstrates, when the Project’s emissions are modeled correctly, the Project’s
total GHG emissions exceed both the “Substantial Progress” efficiency threshold for 2030 of 2.6 MT
CO2e/SP/year as well as the outdated 2020 service population efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT
CO2e/SP/year indicated by the IS/MND (p. 71). Thus, the Project may result in a significant GHG impact
not previously assessed or identified in the IS/MND. As a result, an updated GHG analysis should be
prepared in an updated Project-specific EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated into the
Project.
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Environmental Impact Report, City of Menlo Park, May 2016, available at:
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/10286/Ch03-05_GHG_Draft-EIR?bidId=
20
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Start date and time 05/11/20 12:12:41
AERSCREEN 16216
840 El Camino Real
840 El Camino Real
----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION -----------------
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** --------------- ----------------
Emission Rate: 0.110E-02 g/s 0.877E-02 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 58.00 meters 190.29 feet
Area Source Width: 32.00 meters 104.99 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 67733
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2020.05.11_840ElCaminoReal_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 05/11/20 12:13:34
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 05/11/20 12:13:40
REFINE started 05/11/20 12:13:40
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 05/11/20 12:13:40
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 05/11/20 12:13:42
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT
REF TA HT
0.73348E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99614E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.10334E+02 30.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58295E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32518E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21583E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15756E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12210E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98445E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81787E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69418E+00 225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60002E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52597E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46635E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41747E+00 325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37688E+00 350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34271E+00 375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31361E+00 400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28855E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26682E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24777E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23091E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21587E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20245E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19041E+00 575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18033E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17047E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16151E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15333E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14584E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13897E+00 725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13263E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12678E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12136E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11633E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11166E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10729E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10322E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99404E-01 925.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95828E-01 950.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.92468E-01 975.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89308E-01 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86329E-01 1025.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83519E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80863E-01 1075.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78351E-01 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75970E-01 1125.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73712E-01 1149.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71568E-01 1175.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69530E-01 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67590E-01 1225.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65742E-01 1249.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63979E-01 1275.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62297E-01 1300.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60690E-01 1325.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59154E-01 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57684E-01 1375.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56276E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54926E-01 1425.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53631E-01 1450.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52389E-01 1475.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51195E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50048E-01 1525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48944E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47883E-01 1574.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46860E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45874E-01 1625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44924E-01 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44008E-01 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43123E-01 1700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42269E-01 1725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41444E-01 1750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40646E-01 1775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39874E-01 1800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39127E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38405E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37705E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37027E-01 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36369E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35732E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35114E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34514E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33932E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33366E-01 2050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32817E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32283E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31764E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31259E-01 2150.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30768E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30290E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29825E-01 2224.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29372E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28931E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28501E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28082E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27674E-01 2350.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27276E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26887E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26509E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26139E-01 2449.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25778E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25426E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25082E-01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24746E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24417E-01 2575.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24096E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23783E-01 2625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23476E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23176E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22883E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22596E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22315E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22041E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21772E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21508E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21251E-01 2850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20998E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20751E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20508E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20271E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20038E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19810E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19586E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19367E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19151E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18940E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18733E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18530E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18331E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18135E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17943E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17754E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17569E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17387E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17209E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17033E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16861E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16691E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16525E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16361E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16200E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16042E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15887E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15734E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15584E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15436E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15290E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15147E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15006E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14868E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14731E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14597E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14465E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14335E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14207E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14081E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13957E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13834E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13714E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13596E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13479E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13364E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13250E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13138E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13028E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12920E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12813E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12707E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12603E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12501E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12400E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12300E-01 4250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12202E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12105E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12009E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11915E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11822E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11730E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11639E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11550E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11462E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11375E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11289E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11204E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11121E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11038E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10956E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10876E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10797E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10718E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10641E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10564E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10488E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10414E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10340E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10267E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10195E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10124E-01 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10054E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99846E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99161E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98483E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Start date and time 05/11/20 12:13:52
AERSCREEN 16216
840 El Camino Operation
840 El Camino Operation
----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION -----------------
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** --------------- ----------------
Emission Rate: 0.630E-03 g/s 0.500E-02 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 58.00 meters 190.29 feet
Area Source Width: 32.00 meters 104.99 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 67733
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2020.05.11_840ElCamino_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 05/11/20 12:14:43
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 05/11/20 12:14:49
REFINE started 05/11/20 12:14:49
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 05/11/20 12:14:50
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 05/11/20 12:14:52
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT
REF TA HT
0.41818E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56793E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.58916E+01 30.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33236E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18540E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12305E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89829E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69612E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56127E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46629E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39577E+00 225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34209E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29987E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26588E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23802E+00 325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21487E+00 350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19539E+00 375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17880E+00 400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16451E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15212E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14126E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13165E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12307E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11542E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10856E+00 575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10281E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.97192E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.92085E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87421E-01 675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83151E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79230E-01 725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75618E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72283E-01 775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69194E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66326E-01 825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63659E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61172E-01 875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58849E-01 900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56674E-01 925.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54634E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52719E-01 975.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50917E-01 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49219E-01 1025.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47617E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46103E-01 1075.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44670E-01 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43313E-01 1125.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42026E-01 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40803E-01 1175.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39641E-01 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38535E-01 1225.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37482E-01 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36477E-01 1275.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35518E-01 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34602E-01 1325.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33726E-01 1350.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32887E-01 1375.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32084E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31315E-01 1425.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30577E-01 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29869E-01 1475.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29188E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28534E-01 1525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27905E-01 1550.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27299E-01 1574.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26716E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26154E-01 1625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25613E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25090E-01 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24586E-01 1700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24099E-01 1725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23628E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23173E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22734E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22308E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21896E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21497E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21110E-01 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20736E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20372E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20020E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19678E-01 2000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19346E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19023E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18710E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18405E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18110E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17822E-01 2150.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17542E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17269E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17004E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16746E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16494E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16249E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16011E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15778E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15551E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15329E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15113E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14903E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14697E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14496E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14300E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14108E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13921E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13738E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13559E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13384E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13214E-01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13046E-01 2700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12883E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12723E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12566E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12413E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12263E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12116E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11972E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11831E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11692E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11557E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11424E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11294E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11167E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11042E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10919E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10799E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10681E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10565E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10451E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10339E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10230E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10122E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10017E-01 3275.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99131E-02 3300.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98112E-02 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.97111E-02 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96128E-02 3375.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95163E-02 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.94213E-02 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93280E-02 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.92363E-02 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.91462E-02 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90575E-02 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89704E-02 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88847E-02 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88004E-02 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87174E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86358E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85555E-02 3675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.84765E-02 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83988E-02 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83223E-02 3750.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82470E-02 3775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81728E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80999E-02 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80280E-02 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79572E-02 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78875E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78188E-02 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77512E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76846E-02 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76190E-02 4000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75543E-02 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74906E-02 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74278E-02 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73659E-02 4100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73049E-02 4125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72448E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71855E-02 4175.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71270E-02 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70694E-02 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70126E-02 4250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69566E-02 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69013E-02 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68468E-02 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67930E-02 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67400E-02 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66876E-02 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66360E-02 4425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65851E-02 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65348E-02 4475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64852E-02 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64363E-02 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63879E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63402E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62931E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62467E-02 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62008E-02 4650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61555E-02 4675.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61107E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60665E-02 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60229E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59798E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59373E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58952E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58537E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58127E-02 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57722E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57321E-02 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56926E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56535E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56149E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 71.00 Space 0.00 28,400.00 0
Hotel 95.00 Room 0.46 137,940.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
840 El Camino Real Hotel
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 1 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment about utility company.
Land Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment about construction.
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment about construction equipment list.
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - See SWAPE comment about worker and vendor trips.
Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Energy Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Water And Wastewater -
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblEnergyUse T24E 2.19 1.53
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 13,300.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.64 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.17 0.46
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 4.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 2 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.0445 0.6176 0.3605 1.3800e-
003
0.0367 0.0181 0.0548 9.9800e-
003
0.0168 0.0268 0.0000 129.2650 129.2650 0.0145 0.0000 129.6270
2021 0.7531 0.2782 0.2482 6.0000e-
004
0.0178 0.0119 0.0297 4.8300e-
003
0.0110 0.0158 0.0000 54.4839 54.4839 9.4000e-
003
0.0000 54.7190
Maximum 0.7531 0.6176 0.3605 1.3800e-
003
0.0367 0.0181 0.0548 9.9800e-
003
0.0168 0.0268 0.0000 129.2650 129.2650 0.0145 0.0000 129.6270
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.0445 0.6176 0.3605 1.3800e-
003
0.0367 0.0181 0.0548 9.9800e-
003
0.0168 0.0268 0.0000 129.2649 129.2649 0.0145 0.0000 129.6270
2021 0.7531 0.2782 0.2482 6.0000e-
004
0.0178 0.0119 0.0297 4.8300e-
003
0.0110 0.0158 0.0000 54.4839 54.4839 9.4000e-
003
0.0000 54.7189
Maximum 0.7531 0.6176 0.3605 1.3800e-
003
0.0367 0.0181 0.0548 9.9800e-
003
0.0168 0.0268 0.0000 129.2649 129.2649 0.0145 0.0000 129.6270
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 3 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.6132 1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Energy 0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 618.5286 618.5286 0.0210 8.2000e-
003
621.4962
Mobile 0.0991 0.4276 1.0446 3.7300e-
003
0.3286 3.0900e-
003
0.3317 0.0882 2.8800e-
003
0.0911 0.0000 342.9618 342.9618 0.0124 0.0000 343.2722
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.5576 0.0000 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7645 4.0660 4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Total 0.7394 0.6745 1.2535 5.2100e-
003
0.3286 0.0219 0.3504 0.0882 0.0217 0.1098 11.3221 965.5595 976.8816 0.7360 0.0101 998.2896
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 10-1-2020 12-31-2020 0.7685 0.7685
2 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 1.0373 1.0373
Highest 1.0373 1.0373
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 4 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.6132 1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Energy 0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 618.5286 618.5286 0.0210 8.2000e-
003
621.4962
Mobile 0.0991 0.4276 1.0446 3.7300e-
003
0.3286 3.0900e-
003
0.3317 0.0882 2.8800e-
003
0.0911 0.0000 342.9618 342.9618 0.0124 0.0000 343.2722
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.5576 0.0000 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7645 4.0660 4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Total 0.7394 0.6745 1.2535 5.2100e-
003
0.3286 0.0219 0.3504 0.0882 0.0217 0.1098 11.3221 965.5595 976.8816 0.7360 0.0101 998.2896
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 5 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 10/1/2020 10/14/2020 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 5 1
3 Grading Grading 10/16/2020 10/19/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 10/20/2020 3/8/2021 5 100
5 Paving Paving 3/9/2021 3/15/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/16/2021 3/22/2021 5 5
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 206,910; Non-Residential Outdoor: 68,970; Striped Parking Area: 1,704
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 6 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 9.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 1,663.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 70.00 27.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 14.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 7 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 9.8000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
2.3400e-
003
2.3400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Total 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
9.8000e-
004
2.3400e-
003
3.3200e-
003
1.5000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
2.3800e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 8 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e-
005
1.3200e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3449 0.3449 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3453
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2300e-
003
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.3461 0.3461 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3464
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
1.4900e-
003
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.6910 0.6910 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6917
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 9.8000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
2.3400e-
003
2.3400e-
003
2.2300e-
003
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Total 4.3400e-
003
0.0394 0.0381 6.0000e-
005
9.8000e-
004
2.3400e-
003
3.3200e-
003
1.5000e-
004
2.2300e-
003
2.3800e-
003
0.0000 5.2038 5.2038 9.8000e-
004
0.0000 5.2284
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 9 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e-
005
1.3200e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3449 0.3449 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3453
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.2300e-
003
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 4.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.3461 0.3461 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3464
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.4400e-
003
1.4900e-
003
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.6910 0.6910 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6917
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.4000e-
004
4.2200e-
003
2.0500e-
003
0.0000 1.7000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4314
Total 3.4000e-
004
4.2200e-
003
2.0500e-
003
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
4.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4314
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 10 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 0.0000 0.0173
Total 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 0.0000 0.0173
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.4000e-
004
4.2200e-
003
2.0500e-
003
0.0000 1.7000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4314
Total 3.4000e-
004
4.2200e-
003
2.0500e-
003
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
4.4000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4314
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 11 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 0.0000 0.0173
Total 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 0.0000 0.0173
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.5000e-
003
0.0000 1.5000e-
003
5.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 8.7000e-
004
7.8700e-
003
7.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.7000e-
004
4.7000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.0408 1.0408 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0457
Total 8.7000e-
004
7.8700e-
003
7.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
4.7000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
5.3000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
9.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.0408 1.0408 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0457
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 12 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.9400e-
003
0.2431 0.0489 6.6000e-
004
0.0140 7.8000e-
004
0.0148 3.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
4.6100e-
003
0.0000 63.7239 63.7239 3.2800e-
003
0.0000 63.8059
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0692 0.0692 0.0000 0.0000 0.0693
Total 6.9700e-
003
0.2431 0.0491 6.6000e-
004
0.0141 7.8000e-
004
0.0149 3.8800e-
003
7.5000e-
004
4.6300e-
003
0.0000 63.7932 63.7932 3.2800e-
003
0.0000 63.8752
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.5000e-
003
0.0000 1.5000e-
003
5.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 8.7000e-
004
7.8700e-
003
7.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
4.7000e-
004
4.7000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.0408 1.0408 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0457
Total 8.7000e-
004
7.8700e-
003
7.6200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
4.7000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
5.3000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
9.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.0408 1.0408 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0457
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 13 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.9400e-
003
0.2431 0.0489 6.6000e-
004
0.0140 7.8000e-
004
0.0148 3.8600e-
003
7.5000e-
004
4.6100e-
003
0.0000 63.7239 63.7239 3.2800e-
003
0.0000 63.8059
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0692 0.0692 0.0000 0.0000 0.0693
Total 6.9700e-
003
0.2431 0.0491 6.6000e-
004
0.0141 7.8000e-
004
0.0149 3.8800e-
003
7.5000e-
004
4.6300e-
003
0.0000 63.7932 63.7932 3.2800e-
003
0.0000 63.8752
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0228 0.2346 0.1958 3.0000e-
004
0.0138 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 26.5160 26.5160 8.5800e-
003
0.0000 26.7304
Total 0.0228 0.2346 0.1958 3.0000e-
004
0.0138 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 26.5160 26.5160 8.5800e-
003
0.0000 26.7304
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 14 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.7700e-
003
0.0826 0.0208 2.0000e-
004
4.6900e-
003
4.0000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
1.3600e-
003
3.9000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
0.0000 18.7332 18.7332 9.7000e-
004
0.0000 18.7573
Worker 6.1500e-
003
4.4000e-
003
0.0456 1.4000e-
004
0.0147 1.0000e-
004
0.0148 3.9000e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.9900e-
003
0.0000 12.8418 12.8418 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.8496
Total 8.9200e-
003
0.0870 0.0663 3.4000e-
004
0.0194 5.0000e-
004
0.0199 5.2600e-
003
4.8000e-
004
5.7300e-
003
0.0000 31.5750 31.5750 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 31.6069
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0228 0.2346 0.1958 3.0000e-
004
0.0138 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 26.5160 26.5160 8.5800e-
003
0.0000 26.7304
Total 0.0228 0.2346 0.1958 3.0000e-
004
0.0138 0.0138 0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 26.5160 26.5160 8.5800e-
003
0.0000 26.7304
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 15 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.7700e-
003
0.0826 0.0208 2.0000e-
004
4.6900e-
003
4.0000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
1.3600e-
003
3.9000e-
004
1.7400e-
003
0.0000 18.7332 18.7332 9.7000e-
004
0.0000 18.7573
Worker 6.1500e-
003
4.4000e-
003
0.0456 1.4000e-
004
0.0147 1.0000e-
004
0.0148 3.9000e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.9900e-
003
0.0000 12.8418 12.8418 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 12.8496
Total 8.9200e-
003
0.0870 0.0663 3.4000e-
004
0.0194 5.0000e-
004
0.0199 5.2600e-
003
4.8000e-
004
5.7300e-
003
0.0000 31.5750 31.5750 1.2800e-
003
0.0000 31.6069
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0182 0.1877 0.1707 2.7000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 9.6800e-
003
9.6800e-
003
0.0000 23.5193 23.5193 7.6100e-
003
0.0000 23.7095
Total 0.0182 0.1877 0.1707 2.7000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 9.6800e-
003
9.6800e-
003
0.0000 23.5193 23.5193 7.6100e-
003
0.0000 23.7095
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 16 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.0100e-
003
0.0663 0.0165 1.7000e-
004
4.1600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
4.3000e-
003
1.2000e-
003
1.4000e-
004
1.3400e-
003
0.0000 16.4554 16.4554 8.1000e-
004
0.0000 16.4756
Worker 5.0500e-
003
3.4800e-
003
0.0369 1.2000e-
004
0.0130 9.0000e-
005
0.0131 3.4600e-
003
8.0000e-
005
3.5400e-
003
0.0000 10.9884 10.9884 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 10.9946
Total 7.0600e-
003
0.0698 0.0534 2.9000e-
004
0.0172 2.3000e-
004
0.0174 4.6600e-
003
2.2000e-
004
4.8800e-
003
0.0000 27.4438 27.4438 1.0600e-
003
0.0000 27.4702
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0182 0.1877 0.1707 2.7000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 9.6800e-
003
9.6800e-
003
0.0000 23.5193 23.5193 7.6100e-
003
0.0000 23.7094
Total 0.0182 0.1877 0.1707 2.7000e-
004
0.0105 0.0105 9.6800e-
003
9.6800e-
003
0.0000 23.5193 23.5193 7.6100e-
003
0.0000 23.7094
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 17 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.0100e-
003
0.0663 0.0165 1.7000e-
004
4.1600e-
003
1.4000e-
004
4.3000e-
003
1.2000e-
003
1.4000e-
004
1.3400e-
003
0.0000 16.4554 16.4554 8.1000e-
004
0.0000 16.4756
Worker 5.0500e-
003
3.4800e-
003
0.0369 1.2000e-
004
0.0130 9.0000e-
005
0.0131 3.4600e-
003
8.0000e-
005
3.5400e-
003
0.0000 10.9884 10.9884 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 10.9946
Total 7.0600e-
003
0.0698 0.0534 2.9000e-
004
0.0172 2.3000e-
004
0.0174 4.6600e-
003
2.2000e-
004
4.8800e-
003
0.0000 27.4438 27.4438 1.0600e-
003
0.0000 27.4702
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.8000e-
003
0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e-
005
8.8000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3652
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.8000e-
003
0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e-
005
8.8000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3652
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 18 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3006 0.3006 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3008
Total 1.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3006 0.3006 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3008
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.8000e-
003
0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e-
005
8.8000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3652
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.8000e-
003
0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e-
005
8.8000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
8.2000e-
004
0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3652
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 19 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3006 0.3006 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3008
Total 1.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0100e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3006 0.3006 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3008
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7252 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.5000e-
004
3.8200e-
003
4.5400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6394
Total 0.7257 3.8200e-
003
4.5400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6394
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 20 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.1000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2338 0.2338 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2339
Total 1.1000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2338 0.2338 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2339
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7252 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.5000e-
004
3.8200e-
003
4.5400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6394
Total 0.7257 3.8200e-
003
4.5400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6394
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 21 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.1000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2338 0.2338 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2339
Total 1.1000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2338 0.2338 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2339
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 22 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0991 0.4276 1.0446 3.7300e-
003
0.3286 3.0900e-
003
0.3317 0.0882 2.8800e-
003
0.0911 0.0000 342.9618 342.9618 0.0124 0.0000 343.2722
Unmitigated 0.0991 0.4276 1.0446 3.7300e-
003
0.3286 3.0900e-
003
0.3317 0.0882 2.8800e-
003
0.0911 0.0000 342.9618 342.9618 0.0124 0.0000 343.2722
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 381.90 778.05 565.25 882,871 882,871
Total 381.90 778.05 565.25 882,871 882,871
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749
Hotel 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 23 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 349.7784 349.7784 0.0158 3.2700e-
003
351.1489
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 349.7784 349.7784 0.0158 3.2700e-
003
351.1489
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 268.7503 268.7503 5.1500e-
003
4.9300e-
003
270.3473
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 268.7503 268.7503 5.1500e-
003
4.9300e-
003
270.3473
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 24 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 5.03619e
+006
0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 268.7503 268.7503 5.1500e-
003
4.9300e-
003
270.3473
Total 0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 268.7503 268.7503 5.1500e-
003
4.9300e-
003
270.3473
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 5.03619e
+006
0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 268.7503 268.7503 5.1500e-
003
4.9300e-
003
270.3473
Total 0.0272 0.2469 0.2074 1.4800e-
003
0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 268.7503 268.7503 5.1500e-
003
4.9300e-
003
270.3473
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 25 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
166424 48.4147 2.1900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
48.6044
Hotel 1.03593e
+006
301.3637 0.0136 2.8200e-
003
302.5446
Total 349.7784 0.0158 3.2700e-
003
351.1489
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
166424 48.4147 2.1900e-
003
4.5000e-
004
48.6044
Hotel 1.03593e
+006
301.3637 0.0136 2.8200e-
003
302.5446
Total 349.7784 0.0158 3.2700e-
003
351.1489
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 26 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.6132 1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Unmitigated 0.6132 1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.5406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Total 0.6132 1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 27 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0725 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.5406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Total 0.6132 1.0000e-
005
1.5300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.9700e-
003
2.9700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.1600e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 28 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Unmitigated 4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 2.40984 /
0.26776
4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Total 4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 29 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 2.40984 /
0.26776
4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Total 4.8306 0.0787 1.8900e-
003
7.3621
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Unmitigated 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 30 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 52.01 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Total 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 52.01 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Total 10.5576 0.6239 0.0000 26.1559
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 31 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 32 of 32
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 71.00 Space 0.00 28,400.00 0
Hotel 95.00 Room 0.46 137,940.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
840 El Camino Real Hotel
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 1 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment about utility company.
Land Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment about construction.
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment about construction equipment list.
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - See SWAPE comment about worker and vendor trips.
Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Energy Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Water And Wastewater -
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblEnergyUse T24E 2.19 1.53
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 13,300.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.64 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.17 0.46
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 4.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 2 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 7.7633 246.0727 55.2274 0.6743 16.1130 1.2463 17.3593 4.5301 1.1910 5.7211 0.0000 71,971.96
47
71,971.96
47
3.7578 0.0000 72,065.90
98
2021 290.3417 10.9067 9.6411 0.0243 0.7578 0.4572 1.2150 0.2051 0.4209 0.6260 0.0000 2,437.775
5
2,437.775
5
0.4058 0.0000 2,447.920
8
Maximum 290.3417 246.0727 55.2274 0.6743 16.1130 1.2463 17.3593 4.5301 1.1910 5.7211 0.0000 71,971.96
47
71,971.96
47
3.7578 0.0000 72,065.90
98
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 7.7633 246.0727 55.2274 0.6743 16.1130 1.2463 17.3593 4.5301 1.1910 5.7211 0.0000 71,971.96
47
71,971.96
47
3.7578 0.0000 72,065.90
98
2021 290.3417 10.9067 9.6411 0.0243 0.7578 0.4572 1.2150 0.2051 0.4209 0.6260 0.0000 2,437.775
5
2,437.775
5
0.4058 0.0000 2,447.920
8
Maximum 290.3417 246.0727 55.2274 0.6743 16.1130 1.2463 17.3593 4.5301 1.1910 5.7211 0.0000 71,971.96
47
71,971.96
47
3.7578 0.0000 72,065.90
98
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 3 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Energy 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Mobile 1.0563 3.8260 9.8825 0.0363 3.1403 0.0284 3.1687 0.8401 0.0265 0.8666 3,677.634
8
3,677.634
8
0.1260 3,680.784
1
Total 4.5660 5.1789 11.0358 0.0444 3.1403 0.1313 3.2716 0.8401 0.1294 0.9695 5,300.939
3
5,300.939
3
0.1572 0.0298 5,313.737
3
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Energy 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Mobile 1.0563 3.8260 9.8825 0.0363 3.1403 0.0284 3.1687 0.8401 0.0265 0.8666 3,677.634
8
3,677.634
8
0.1260 3,680.784
1
Total 4.5660 5.1789 11.0358 0.0444 3.1403 0.1313 3.2716 0.8401 0.1294 0.9695 5,300.939
3
5,300.939
3
0.1572 0.0298 5,313.737
3
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 4 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 10/1/2020 10/14/2020 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 5 1
3 Grading Grading 10/16/2020 10/19/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 10/20/2020 3/8/2021 5 100
5 Paving Paving 3/9/2021 3/15/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/16/2021 3/22/2021 5 5
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 206,910; Non-Residential Outdoor: 68,970; Striped Parking Area: 1,704
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 5 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 9.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 1,663.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 70.00 27.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 14.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 6 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1969 0.0000 0.1969 0.0298 0.0000 0.0298 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.1969 0.4672 0.6641 0.0298 0.4457 0.4755 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 7 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 7.4300e-
003
0.2578 0.0512 7.2000e-
004
0.0157 8.4000e-
004
0.0166 4.3100e-
003
8.1000e-
004
5.1100e-
003
76.5705 76.5705 3.8300e-
003
76.6663
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e-
003
82.1271
Total 0.0422 0.2788 0.3195 1.5400e-
003
0.0979 1.3700e-
003
0.0993 0.0261 1.3000e-
003
0.0274 158.6482 158.6482 5.8100e-
003
158.7934
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1969 0.0000 0.1969 0.0298 0.0000 0.0298 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.1969 0.4672 0.6641 0.0298 0.4457 0.4755 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 8 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 7.4300e-
003
0.2578 0.0512 7.2000e-
004
0.0157 8.4000e-
004
0.0166 4.3100e-
003
8.1000e-
004
5.1100e-
003
76.5705 76.5705 3.8300e-
003
76.6663
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e-
003
82.1271
Total 0.0422 0.2788 0.3195 1.5400e-
003
0.0979 1.3700e-
003
0.0993 0.0261 1.3000e-
003
0.0274 158.6482 158.6482 5.8100e-
003
158.7934
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.3353 0.3353 0.3085 0.3085 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Total 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.5303 0.3353 0.8656 0.0573 0.3085 0.3658 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 9 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e-
004
41.0636
Total 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e-
004
41.0636
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.3353 0.3353 0.3085 0.3085 0.0000 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Total 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.5303 0.3353 0.8656 0.0573 0.3085 0.3658 0.0000 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 10 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e-
004
41.0636
Total 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e-
004
41.0636
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5048 0.0000 1.5048 0.5277 0.0000 0.5277 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 1.5048 0.4672 1.9720 0.5277 0.4457 0.9733 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 11 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 6.8612 238.1788 47.3365 0.6615 14.5261 0.7786 15.3046 3.9806 0.7449 4.7255 70,742.65
18
70,742.65
18
3.5389 70,831.12
49
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e-
003
82.1271
Total 6.8959 238.1998 47.6048 0.6623 14.6082 0.7791 15.3873 4.0024 0.7454 4.7478 70,824.72
95
70,824.72
95
3.5409 70,913.25
20
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5048 0.0000 1.5048 0.5277 0.0000 0.5277 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 1.5048 0.4672 1.9720 0.5277 0.4457 0.9733 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 12 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 6.8612 238.1788 47.3365 0.6615 14.5261 0.7786 15.3046 3.9806 0.7449 4.7255 70,742.65
18
70,742.65
18
3.5389 70,831.12
49
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e-
003
82.1271
Total 6.8959 238.1998 47.6048 0.6623 14.6082 0.7791 15.3873 4.0024 0.7454 4.7478 70,824.72
95
70,824.72
95
3.5409 70,913.25
20
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.8962
Total 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.896
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 13 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1024 3.0770 0.7340 7.4400e-
003
0.1828 0.0151 0.1978 0.0526 0.0144 0.0670 787.6117 787.6117 0.0388 788.5814
Worker 0.2433 0.1473 1.8781 5.7700e-
003
0.5750 3.7200e-
003
0.5788 0.1525 3.4300e-
003
0.1560 574.5436 574.5436 0.0138 574.8897
Total 0.3457 3.2243 2.6121 0.0132 0.7578 0.0188 0.7766 0.2051 0.0179 0.2230 1,362.155
3
1,362.155
3
0.0526 1,363.471
1
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 0.0000 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.8962
Total 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 0.0000 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.896
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 14 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1024 3.0770 0.7340 7.4400e-
003
0.1828 0.0151 0.1978 0.0526 0.0144 0.0670 787.6117 787.6117 0.0388 788.5814
Worker 0.2433 0.1473 1.8781 5.7700e-
003
0.5750 3.7200e-
003
0.5788 0.1525 3.4300e-
003
0.1560 574.5436 574.5436 0.0138 574.8897
Total 0.3457 3.2243 2.6121 0.0132 0.7578 0.0188 0.7766 0.2051 0.0179 0.2230 1,362.155
3
1,362.155
3
0.0526 1,363.471
1
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.1358
Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.135
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 15 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0837 2.7902 0.6580 7.3600e-
003
0.1828 6.0500e-
003
0.1888 0.0526 5.7800e-
003
0.0584 780.1881 780.1881 0.0366 781.1035
Worker 0.2251 0.1315 1.7194 5.5600e-
003
0.5750 3.6200e-
003
0.5787 0.1525 3.3300e-
003
0.1559 554.3717 554.3717 0.0124 554.6815
Total 0.3088 2.9218 2.3774 0.0129 0.7578 9.6700e-
003
0.7675 0.2051 9.1100e-
003
0.2143 1,334.559
7
1,334.559
7
0.0490 1,335.785
0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 0.0000 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.1358
Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 0.0000 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.135
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 16 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0837 2.7902 0.6580 7.3600e-
003
0.1828 6.0500e-
003
0.1888 0.0526 5.7800e-
003
0.0584 780.1881 780.1881 0.0366 781.1035
Worker 0.2251 0.1315 1.7194 5.5600e-
003
0.5750 3.6200e-
003
0.5787 0.1525 3.3300e-
003
0.1559 554.3717 554.3717 0.0124 554.6815
Total 0.3088 2.9218 2.3774 0.0129 0.7578 9.6700e-
003
0.7675 0.2051 9.1100e-
003
0.2143 1,334.559
7
1,334.559
7
0.0490 1,335.785
0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 17 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0579 0.0338 0.4421 1.4300e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 142.5527 142.5527 3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Total 0.0579 0.0338 0.4421 1.4300e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 142.5527 142.5527 3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 0.0000 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 0.0000 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 18 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0579 0.0338 0.4421 1.4300e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 142.5527 142.5527 3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Total 0.0579 0.0338 0.4421 1.4300e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 142.5527 142.5527 3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 290.0778 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 290.2967 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 19 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0450 0.0263 0.3439 1.1100e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 110.8743 110.8743 2.4800e-
003
110.9363
Total 0.0450 0.0263 0.3439 1.1100e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 110.8743 110.8743 2.4800e-
003
110.9363
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 290.0778 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 290.2967 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 20 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0450 0.0263 0.3439 1.1100e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 110.8743 110.8743 2.4800e-
003
110.9363
Total 0.0450 0.0263 0.3439 1.1100e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 110.8743 110.8743 2.4800e-
003
110.9363
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 21 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.0563 3.8260 9.8825 0.0363 3.1403 0.0284 3.1687 0.8401 0.0265 0.8666 3,677.634
8
3,677.634
8
0.1260 3,680.784
1
Unmitigated 1.0563 3.8260 9.8825 0.0363 3.1403 0.0284 3.1687 0.8401 0.0265 0.8666 3,677.634
8
3,677.634
8
0.1260 3,680.784
1
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 381.90 778.05 565.25 882,871 882,871
Total 381.90 778.05 565.25 882,871 882,871
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749
Hotel 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 22 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 23 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 13797.8 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Total 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 13.7978 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Total 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 24 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Unmitigated 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3974 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
2.9620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.5700e-
003
1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Total 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 25 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3974 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
2.9620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.5700e-
003
1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Total 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 26 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:07 PMPage 27 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 71.00 Space 0.00 28,400.00 0
Hotel 95.00 Room 0.46 137,940.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
840 El Camino Real Hotel
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 1 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment about utility company.
Land Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment about construction.
Off-road Equipment - See SWAPE comment about construction equipment list.
Off-road Equipment -
Trips and VMT - See SWAPE comment about worker and vendor trips.
Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Energy Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Water And Wastewater -
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblEnergyUse T24E 2.19 1.53
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 13,300.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.64 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.17 0.46
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 4.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 2 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 7.9531 251.9225 58.8346 0.6632 16.1130 1.2599 17.3729 4.5301 1.2040 5.7341 0.0000 70,777.28
25
70,777.28
25
3.9356 0.0000 70,875.67
15
2021 290.3444 10.9617 9.6286 0.0237 0.7578 0.4574 1.2152 0.2051 0.4211 0.6262 0.0000 2,374.284
7
2,374.284
7
0.4080 0.0000 2,384.484
1
Maximum 290.3444 251.9225 58.8346 0.6632 16.1130 1.2599 17.3729 4.5301 1.2040 5.7341 0.0000 70,777.28
25
70,777.28
25
3.9356 0.0000 70,875.67
15
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 7.9531 251.9225 58.8346 0.6632 16.1130 1.2599 17.3729 4.5301 1.2040 5.7341 0.0000 70,777.28
25
70,777.28
25
3.9356 0.0000 70,875.67
15
2021 290.3444 10.9617 9.6286 0.0237 0.7578 0.4574 1.2152 0.2051 0.4211 0.6262 0.0000 2,374.284
7
2,374.284
7
0.4080 0.0000 2,384.484
1
Maximum 290.3444 251.9225 58.8346 0.6632 16.1130 1.2599 17.3729 4.5301 1.2040 5.7341 0.0000 70,777.28
25
70,777.28
25
3.9356 0.0000 70,875.67
15
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 3 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Energy 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Mobile 0.9011 4.0004 10.1146 0.0340 3.1403 0.0286 3.1689 0.8401 0.0267 0.8668 3,442.822
6
3,442.822
6
0.1295 3,446.059
7
Total 4.4108 5.3533 11.2679 0.0421 3.1403 0.1314 3.2718 0.8401 0.1295 0.9697 5,066.127
1
5,066.127
1
0.1607 0.0298 5,079.012
8
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Energy 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Mobile 0.9011 4.0004 10.1146 0.0340 3.1403 0.0286 3.1689 0.8401 0.0267 0.8668 3,442.822
6
3,442.822
6
0.1295 3,446.059
7
Total 4.4108 5.3533 11.2679 0.0421 3.1403 0.1314 3.2718 0.8401 0.1295 0.9697 5,066.127
1
5,066.127
1
0.1607 0.0298 5,079.012
8
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 4 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 10/1/2020 10/14/2020 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 5 1
3 Grading Grading 10/16/2020 10/19/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 10/20/2020 3/8/2021 5 100
5 Paving Paving 3/9/2021 3/15/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/16/2021 3/22/2021 5 5
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 206,910; Non-Residential Outdoor: 68,970; Striped Parking Area: 1,704
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 5 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 9.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 1,663.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 70.00 27.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 14.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 6 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1969 0.0000 0.1969 0.0298 0.0000 0.0298 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.1969 0.4672 0.6641 0.0298 0.4457 0.4755 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 7 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 7.6300e-
003
0.2641 0.0552 7.0000e-
004
0.0157 8.6000e-
004
0.0166 4.3100e-
003
8.2000e-
004
5.1300e-
003
75.2844 75.2844 4.0200e-
003
75.3850
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e-
003
75.6528
Total 0.0444 0.2901 0.3072 1.4600e-
003
0.0979 1.3900e-
003
0.0993 0.0261 1.3100e-
003
0.0274 150.8910 150.8910 5.8700e-
003
151.0378
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1969 0.0000 0.1969 0.0298 0.0000 0.0298 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.1969 0.4672 0.6641 0.0298 0.4457 0.4755 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 8 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 7.6300e-
003
0.2641 0.0552 7.0000e-
004
0.0157 8.6000e-
004
0.0166 4.3100e-
003
8.2000e-
004
5.1300e-
003
75.2844 75.2844 4.0200e-
003
75.3850
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e-
003
75.6528
Total 0.0444 0.2901 0.3072 1.4600e-
003
0.0979 1.3900e-
003
0.0993 0.0261 1.3100e-
003
0.0274 150.8910 150.8910 5.8700e-
003
151.0378
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.3353 0.3353 0.3085 0.3085 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Total 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.5303 0.3353 0.8656 0.0573 0.3085 0.3658 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 9 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e-
004
37.8264
Total 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e-
004
37.8264
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.3353 0.3353 0.3085 0.3085 0.0000 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Total 0.6853 8.4307 4.0942 9.7400e-
003
0.5303 0.3353 0.8656 0.0573 0.3085 0.3658 0.0000 943.4872 943.4872 0.3051 951.1158
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 10 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e-
004
37.8264
Total 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e-
004
0.0411 2.7000e-
004
0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e-
004
0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e-
004
37.8264
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5048 0.0000 1.5048 0.5277 0.0000 0.5277 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 1.5048 0.4672 1.9720 0.5277 0.4457 0.9733 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 11 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 7.0490 244.0236 50.9600 0.6504 14.5261 0.7922 15.3182 3.9806 0.7579 4.7385 69,554.44
08
69,554.44
08
3.7168 69,647.36
09
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e-
003
75.6528
Total 7.0857 244.0496 51.2120 0.6512 14.6082 0.7927 15.4009 4.0024 0.7584 4.7608 69,630.04
73
69,630.04
73
3.7187 69,723.01
37
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5048 0.0000 1.5048 0.5277 0.0000 0.5277 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 0.4672 0.4672 0.4457 0.4457 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Total 0.8674 7.8729 7.6226 0.0120 1.5048 0.4672 1.9720 0.5277 0.4457 0.9733 0.0000 1,147.235
2
1,147.235
2
0.2169 1,152.657
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 12 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 7.0490 244.0236 50.9600 0.6504 14.5261 0.7922 15.3182 3.9806 0.7579 4.7385 69,554.44
08
69,554.44
08
3.7168 69,647.36
09
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e-
004
0.0822 5.3000e-
004
0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e-
004
0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e-
003
75.6528
Total 7.0857 244.0496 51.2120 0.6512 14.6082 0.7927 15.4009 4.0024 0.7584 4.7608 69,630.04
73
69,630.04
73
3.7187 69,723.01
37
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.8962
Total 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.896
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 13 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1077 3.1114 0.8397 7.2500e-
003
0.1828 0.0153 0.1981 0.0526 0.0147 0.0673 767.6836 767.6836 0.0420 768.7324
Worker 0.2574 0.1820 1.7639 5.3100e-
003
0.5750 3.7200e-
003
0.5788 0.1525 3.4300e-
003
0.1560 529.2458 529.2458 0.0129 529.5694
Total 0.3651 3.2934 2.6036 0.0126 0.7578 0.0191 0.7769 0.2051 0.0181 0.2232 1,296.929
3
1,296.929
3
0.0549 1,298.301
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 0.0000 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.8962
Total 0.8617 8.8523 7.3875 0.0114 0.5224 0.5224 0.4806 0.4806 0.0000 1,102.978
1
1,102.978
1
0.3567 1,111.896
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 14 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1077 3.1114 0.8397 7.2500e-
003
0.1828 0.0153 0.1981 0.0526 0.0147 0.0673 767.6836 767.6836 0.0420 768.7324
Worker 0.2574 0.1820 1.7639 5.3100e-
003
0.5750 3.7200e-
003
0.5788 0.1525 3.4300e-
003
0.1560 529.2458 529.2458 0.0129 529.5694
Total 0.3651 3.2934 2.6036 0.0126 0.7578 0.0191 0.7769 0.2051 0.0181 0.2232 1,296.929
3
1,296.929
3
0.0549 1,298.301
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.1358
Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.135
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 15 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0887 2.8142 0.7563 7.1800e-
003
0.1828 6.2600e-
003
0.1890 0.0526 5.9800e-
003
0.0586 760.3933 760.3933 0.0396 761.3837
Worker 0.2384 0.1625 1.6087 5.1200e-
003
0.5750 3.6200e-
003
0.5787 0.1525 3.3300e-
003
0.1559 510.6757 510.6757 0.0116 510.9645
Total 0.3271 2.9767 2.3649 0.0123 0.7578 9.8800e-
003
0.7677 0.2051 9.3100e-
003
0.2145 1,271.069
0
1,271.069
0
0.0512 1,272.348
2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 0.0000 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.1358
Total 0.7750 7.9850 7.2637 0.0114 0.4475 0.4475 0.4117 0.4117 0.0000 1,103.215
8
1,103.215
8
0.3568 1,112.135
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 16 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0887 2.8142 0.7563 7.1800e-
003
0.1828 6.2600e-
003
0.1890 0.0526 5.9800e-
003
0.0586 760.3933 760.3933 0.0396 761.3837
Worker 0.2384 0.1625 1.6087 5.1200e-
003
0.5750 3.6200e-
003
0.5787 0.1525 3.3300e-
003
0.1559 510.6757 510.6757 0.0116 510.9645
Total 0.3271 2.9767 2.3649 0.0123 0.7578 9.8800e-
003
0.7677 0.2051 9.3100e-
003
0.2145 1,271.069
0
1,271.069
0
0.0512 1,272.348
2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 17 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0613 0.0418 0.4137 1.3200e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 131.3166 131.3166 2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Total 0.0613 0.0418 0.4137 1.3200e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 131.3166 131.3166 2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 0.0000 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 0.0000 1,035.342
5
1,035.342
5
0.3016 1,042.881
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 18 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0613 0.0418 0.4137 1.3200e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 131.3166 131.3166 2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Total 0.0613 0.0418 0.4137 1.3200e-
003
0.1479 9.3000e-
004
0.1488 0.0392 8.6000e-
004
0.0401 131.3166 131.3166 2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 290.0778 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 290.2967 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 19 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0477 0.0325 0.3217 1.0200e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 102.1351 102.1351 2.3100e-
003
102.1929
Total 0.0477 0.0325 0.3217 1.0200e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 102.1351 102.1351 2.3100e-
003
102.1929
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 290.0778 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 290.2967 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 20 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0477 0.0325 0.3217 1.0200e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 102.1351 102.1351 2.3100e-
003
102.1929
Total 0.0477 0.0325 0.3217 1.0200e-
003
0.1150 7.2000e-
004
0.1157 0.0305 6.7000e-
004
0.0312 102.1351 102.1351 2.3100e-
003
102.1929
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 21 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.9011 4.0004 10.1146 0.0340 3.1403 0.0286 3.1689 0.8401 0.0267 0.8668 3,442.822
6
3,442.822
6
0.1295 3,446.059
7
Unmitigated 0.9011 4.0004 10.1146 0.0340 3.1403 0.0286 3.1689 0.8401 0.0267 0.8668 3,442.822
6
3,442.822
6
0.1295 3,446.059
7
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 381.90 778.05 565.25 882,871 882,871
Total 381.90 778.05 565.25 882,871 882,871
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749
Hotel 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 22 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 23 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 13797.8 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Total 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 13.7978 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Total 0.1488 1.3527 1.1363 8.1200e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 0.1028 1,623.268
1
1,623.268
1
0.0311 0.0298 1,632.914
4
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 24 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Unmitigated 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3974 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
2.9620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.5700e-
003
1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Total 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 25 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.3974 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
2.9620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.5700e-
003
1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Total 3.3609 1.5000e-
004
0.0170 0.0000 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0363 0.0363 1.0000e-
004
0.0387
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 26 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/11/2020 12:06 PMPage 27 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
October 2015 1 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education:
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on VOC filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience:
Dr. Rosenfeld is the Co-Founder and Principal Environmental Chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise
(SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological
restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling, oil spills, boilers,
incinerators and other industrial and agricultural sources relating to nuisance and personal injury. His project
experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing petroleum, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile
organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, MtBE, fuel
oxygenates and odor. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated greenhouse gas emissions using various modeling programs
recommended by California Air Quality Management Districts.
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
October 2015 2 Rosenfeld CV
Publications:
Chen, J. A., Zapata, A R., Sutherland, A. J., Molmen, D. R,. Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing,
Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). Anatomy of an Odor Wheel. Water Science and Technology.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). The use of an odor wheel classification for
evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities. Water Science And Technology.
October 2015 3 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
October 2015 4 Rosenfeld CV
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
October 2015 5 Rosenfeld CV
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
October 2015 6 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
October 2015 7 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993.
October 2015 8 Rosenfeld CV
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September, 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
October 2015 9 Rosenfeld CV
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana
Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division
Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2008
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation
A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2006, October 2007
Rosenfeld Trial: January 2008
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino
Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2009
Rosenfeld Trial: March 2010
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
October 2015 10 Rosenfeld CV
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles
Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust;
Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008, October 2008
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch
Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a
California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma
corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299)
Rosenfeld Deposition: January 2008
In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas
Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens
Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil
Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM)
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division
Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2010
Rosenfeld Trial: October 2010
In the District Court of Texas 21st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
Rosenfeld Trial: May 2009
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013