HomeMy WebLinkAbout0013_7_SB 343 - Item 10 - Comment in Support of Appeal 840 El Camino RealNovember 9, 2020
Via E-mail
Mayor Rich Garbrino
Vice Mayor Mark Addiego
Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto
Councilmember Mark Nagales
Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas
City of South San Francisco City Council
City Hall
400 Grand Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
rich.garbarino@ssf.net
mark.addiego@ssf.net
karyl.matsumoto@ssf.net
mark.nagales@ssf.net
Flor.Nicolas@ssf.net
council@ssf.net
all-cc@ssf.net
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 840 El
Camino Real Hotel Project
Dear Mayor Garbrino, Vice Mayor Addiego, and Honorable Members of the City Council:
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 their appeal of the South San Francisco Planning Commissions’ September 17, 2020
approval of the 840 El Camino Real Hotel, including an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (“IS/MND”)(the “Project”). The IS/MND fails to analyze all environmental impacts
and to implement all necessary mitigation measures. As a result, LIUNA respectfully requests
that the City of South San Francisco (“City”) grant our appeal and require staff to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) in order to incorporate our concerns discussed below.
LIUNA initially commented on the IS/MND on May 14, 2020. Those comments
included the expert comments of Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE,
CIH, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), and noise expert Derek Watry of the
acoustics firm Wilson Ihrig.
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 11/09/2020
Item # 10
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 2 of 17
The Applicant submitted a response to our comments dated September 3, 2020. The
Applicant’s comments were supported by comments from Rincon Consultants, Inc. (“Rincon”)
and Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (“ARTI Report”) dated June 30, 2020.
This comment supplements and incorporates by reference our May 14, 2020 comments
and September 30, 2020 appeal, and responds to the Applicant, Rincon, and the ARTI Report’s
response to our previous comments. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are the supplemental
comments of Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are the
supplemental comments of SWAPE.
As explained below nothing in the Reports submitted by the Applicant change the fact
that an EIR must be prepared for this Project. “[I]f there is a disagreement among experts over
the significance of an effect, the agency is to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR.”
Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1316–1317; Moss v. Cty. of Humboldt
(2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1049.
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
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its
proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) except in certain limited
circumstances. See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Dunn-
Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. 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. City Council of San Diego (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440. A negative declaration
may be prepared instead of an EIR when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency
determines that a project “would not have a significant effect on the environment.” Quail
Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597; § 21080(c). Such a
determination may be made, however, only if “[t]here is no substantial evidence in light of the
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 3 of 17
whole record before the lead agency” that such an impact may occur. Id., § 21080(c)(1)
(emphasis added).
A negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial
evidence in the record supports a “fair argument” that significant impacts may occur. Pub. Res.
Code § 21082.2. This is true even if other substantial evidence in the record supports the
opposite conclusion. Stanislaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144,
150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597. 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. Citizens Action to Serve All Students
v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754. As a matter of law, “substantial evidence includes
. . . expert opinion.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064(f)(5). An
agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to
the contrary. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318.
Here, substantial evidence presented in this comment letter, and the supporting technical
comments, supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts
on indoor air quality, noise, air quality, human health, and greenhouse gas emissions. For these
reasons, the City should grant the Appeal, withdraw the MND, and prepare an EIR for the
Project.
III. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A
FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
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 to May 14,
2020 LIUNA Comment – (“May 14 Comment”)). 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.
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.” May 14 Comment, Exh. A,
Offermann, pp. 2-3.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 4 of 17
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
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.
Attached to this letter as Exhibit 1 are supplemental comments of Mr. Offermann,
responding to the June 30, 2030 comments of Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (“ARTI”).
ARTI makes four comments on Mr. Offermann’s comment. In Exhibit 1, Mr. Offermann
addresses each of the arguments made by ARTI.
For example, ARTI argues that the hotel employee formaldehyde exposures are actually
lower than was used by Mr. Offermann because the hotel outdoor air ventilation rates are higher
than those used in the Chan et al., 2019 HENGH study relied on by Mr. Offermann. ARTI
calculates that the hotel indoor formaldehyde concentrations would actually be 22 times lower
than was estimated in the Chan study. Exhibit 1, p. 2.
Mr. Offermann explains why ARTI’s calculation is flawed. First, he notes, ARTI’s
calculation assumes that all employees will work all day in the hotel lobby space, which is
expected to have fewer formaldehyde emitting products and higher outdoor air ventilation rates.
Id. In doing so, ARTI ignores the conditions of hotel housekeepers, who spend most of their
working days in hotel rooms. Id. As a result, hotel housekeepers will experience a much higher
indoor formaldehyde concentrations than those who spend most of their time in the lobby. Id.
Second, Mr. Offermann explains that ARTI “erroneously calculates the outdoor
ventilation rate in the hotel lobby using the occupancy from the California Building Code
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 5 of 17
‘Means of Egress’ for Assembly Areas.” Id. at 3. But this is the maximum design occupancy
allowed for safe egress in the event of an emergency, and not the design occupancy for outdoor
air ventilation, which is less than half of the egress capacity. Id
Third, the ARTI calculations assume that formaldehyde emission rates from the Chan
study remain the same in a hotel with higher outdoor air ventilation rates. Id. But this is
incorrect according to Mr. Offermann. Formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood
products actually increase with increasing outdoor air ventilations rates, so emission rates in
hotels will be higher not lower as a result of higher outdoor air ventilation rates in hotels. Id.
Mr. Offermann updated his model to specifically determine the cancer risk posed to
housekeepers. He determined that housekeepers in the Project would have an additional cancer
risk of 16.3 per million, which exceeds the CEQA threshold of 10 per million.
Mr. Offermann’s letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 responds to each additional argument
made by ARTI. But the fact that the Applicant and their expert disagree with Mr. Offermann is
not relevant to the determination as to whether the record contains substantial evidnece that the
Project may have a signficant impact. Mr. Offermann’s comments constitute substantial
evidnece that the Project will have a signficant health imapct that has not been addressed. As a
result, an EIR is required.
B. 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. May 16 Comment, Exh. C, SWAPE, p. 2. According to the
Guidelines, the operational criteria pollutant screening size of a 489-room hotel only applies to
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 6 of 17
operational NOx emissions, as shown in the excerpt below.1
The screening threshold for hotels says nothing about whether 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.
C. 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.
The June 30, 2020 Rincon comments raise issue with SWAPE’s comments that there are
errors in the CalEEMod model. SWAPE’s supplemental comments, attached hereto as Exhibit 2,
respond to each of Rincon’s comments and finds each without merit.
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
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.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 7 of 17
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.” May 14 Comment, Exh. C, SWAPE, p. 4. Unless additional evidence is provided
as to why every phase of 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C,
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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, SWAPE, p. 5 (citing
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 8 of 17
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%. May 14 Comment, Exh. C,
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
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.
May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 9 of 17
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. May
14 Comment, Exh. C, 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.
D. 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
In SWAPE’s supplemental comments, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, SWAPE prepared
another updated model giving the City the benefit of the doubt by omitting the unsubstantiated
changes to the intensity factors, changes to the off-road construction equipment values, and
operational mitigation measures, as well as including only the increase to the site preparation
phase of construction. Exhibit 2, p. 8. Even under these circumstances, the results were the
Project’s VOC and NOx emissions were the same. Exhibit 1, p. 9. 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.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 10 of 17
E. 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is the organization responsible
for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 11 of 17
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”).2
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.
The Rincon comments do not change the conclusion that an HRA is required. See Exhibit
2, pp. 9-10. 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, SWAPE, p. 13. SWAPE used a sensitive receptor
distance of 25 meters, which is the location of the maximally exposed receptor,3 and analyzed
impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and BAAQMD guidance
utilizing age sensitivity factors. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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. The fact that other
experts may disagree is irrelevant. “[I]f there is a disagreement among experts over the
2 “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
3 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
November 9, 2020
Page 12 of 17
significance of an effect, the agency is to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR.
[Citations.]” Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1316–1317; Moss v. City. of
Humboldt (2008), 162 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1049.
F. 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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. May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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.
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
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 13 of 17
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.
May 14 Comment, Exh. C, 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.
G. 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
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 14 of 17
levels during construction would create a significant noise impact. May 14 Comment, Exh. B,
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. May 14, 2020 Comment, Ex. B, 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.” Id. 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.4 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.” Id.
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. May 14, 2020 Comment, Ex. B, 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. May 14, 2020 Comment,
Ex. B, 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
4 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
November 9, 2020
Page 15 of 17
maximum noise level will exceed the threshold of significance for four of the five phases of
construction.
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.” Id. 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.
May 14, 2020 Comment, Ex. B, 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.” May 14, 2020 Comment, Ex. B, Watry, p. 3. The average
ambient average noise level was 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. May 14, 2020 Comment,
Ex. B, Watry at pp. 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.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 16 of 17
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.” May 14, 2020 Comment, Ex. B, 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. May 14, 2020
Comment, Ex. B, 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
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.
The ARTI Report does not affect the fact that Mr. Watry’s comments constitute
substantial evidence of a significant noise imapct. Indeed, there are numerous errors in the ARTI
Report itself.
The first issue is that the ARTI Report claims that Mr. Watry’s comments are wrong
because “there are no ambient noise impact requirements per code as such from construction-
related activities as provided under SFFMC Section 8.32.050 for special provisions.” ARTI, pp.
13-14. But Mr. Watry never claims otherwise. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides that a
project will have a signficant noise impact if it would result in “[a] substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proejct vicinity above existing levels without the
project.” CEQA Guidelines, App. G, sec. XII(d). It is pursuant to this standard, not SSFMC
Section 8.32.050, that Mr. Watry determined that the Project will have a significant imapct.
840 El Camino Real Hotel Project
November 9, 2020
Page 17 of 17
Second, the ARTI report repeatedly misstates Mr. Watry’s analysis. Mr. Watry explains
in his comments that “[i]t 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.” Watry, p. 4. Accordingly, Mr. Watry concludes that “[w]ith 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 61.2 dBA Leq” Yet in multiple place the ARTI report
claims, without evidence, that Mr. Watry “reduced the measures ambient Leq of 63.4 dbA . . . to
arrive at an ambient Leq of 58.4 dbA in the backyards of residences.” ARTI, p. 14; see also
ARTI, p. 15 (“reduction of ambient noise Leq of 63.4 dbA . . . by 5dbA . . . to arrive at Leq of
58.4 dbA.”).
Next, the ARTI Report claims that Mr. Watry’s analysis is wrong because it did not
account for contributory ambient noise sources from directions other than from El Camino Real.
ARTI, p. 15. Yet nothing in the record, including the ARTI Report, demonstrate that there
would be any additional contribution.
Finally, the ARTI Report claims that Mr. Watry should have used maximum ambient
levels rather than average ambient levels because that is what is required by SSFMC Section
8.32.030. As mentioned above, however, Mr. Watry’s comments and conclusions are not based
on SSFMC, so SSFMC section 8.32.030 is irrelevant. Instead, Mr. Watry determined that the
CEQA threshold of significance was exceeded based on exceedance of what Mr. Watry noted 10
dB, and Mr. Watry noted that in his field of expertise it is common practice to use 10 dB as the
threshold of significance for temporary increases in ambient noises.
Despite the ARTI Report, Mr. Watry’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence
that the Project may have a significant noise impact that was not disclosed, analyzed, or
mitigated in the IS/MND. An EIR is required to address this significant impact.
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the above comments, as well as those previously filed by LIUNA, we
respectfully request the City grand our appeal and prepare an EIR for the Project. Thank you for
considering these comments and our appeal.
Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
EXHIBIT 1
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: October 17, 2020
To: Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Response to Comments on IEE Indoor Air Quality Letter: 840 El Camino
Real Hotel Project – South San Francisco, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4355)
Pages: 15 (a total of 91 pages with Appendices A and B).
The following are my responses to the comments received from Applied Remedial
Technologies Inc. (ARTI) June 30, 2020 report “Preliminary Response Report to Lozeau
Drury, LLP Letter Dated May 14, 2020 (Draft)” regarding our April 28, 2020 report
“Indoor Air Quality: 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project – South San Francisco, CA”.
The ARTI report is attached in Appendix A and our April 28, 20210 report is attached in
Appendix B.
The ARTI report contains the following four comments on our analyses of the cancer risk
posed to workers in the proposed hotel project from formaldehyde emitted by
construction materials and finishes, and furnishings the emit formaldehyde (e.g.,
composite wood products).
Comment #1. Ventilation Rate (Title 24 CEC for Commercial versus Residential Homes)
Factor for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation.
Comment #2. Exposure Duration (ED) for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation.
2 of 15
Comment #3. Inhalation Rate (InhR) for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation.
Comment #4. Other Significant Mitigating Factors for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk
Calculation.
The following are our responses to each of these four comments.
Comment #1. Ventilation Rate (Title 24 CEC for Commercial versus Residential Homes)
Factor for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation.
ARTI argues that the hotel employee formaldehyde exposures we calculated from
formaldehyde measurements in a recent large study of California homes (Chan et. al,
2019 HENGH study), are lower in hotels since the hotel outdoor air ventilation rates are
higher than those in the homes of the HENGH study.
In our initial April 28, 2020 comments we estimated that the combination of indoor
emission rates of formaldehyde and outdoor air ventilation rates in hotels may create
indoor formaldehyde concentrations similar to those in the homes of the HENGH study, a
median indoor concentration of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb).
ARTI calculates that the hotel indoor formaldehyde concentrations will be 22 times lower
than the 22.4 µg/m3 than we estimated from the Chan 2019 residential study. The ARTI
calculation is deeply flawed.
First of all, ARTI makes this calculation for hotel employees that work all day in the
hotel lobby space, which is expected to have lower loading of formaldehyde emitting
composite wood products (ft2 of composite wood per ft3 of indoor air space) and higher
outdoor air ventilation rates than other spaces, such as the hotel guest rooms where hotel
housekeepers spend most of their working days. The result of these differences in
composite wood product loading and outdoor air ventilation rates is that hotel
housekeepers experience much higher indoor formaldehyde concentrations than those
hotel workers that spend most of their time in the hotel lobby.
3 of 15
Second, ARTI erroneously calculates the outdoor air ventilation rate in the hotel lobby
using the occupancy from the California Building Code “Means of Egress” for Assembly
Areas – Unconcentrated (tables and chairs), 15 ft2 per occupant, or 67 occupants per
1,000 ft2. This occupancy is the maximum design occupancy permitted for safe egress in
the event of an emergency such as a fire, not the design occupancy for outdoor air
ventilation, which is less than half of the egress occupancy.
Third, the ARTI indoor hotel lobby formaldehyde calculations assume that the
formaldehyde emission rates observed in the Chan 2019 residential study remain the
same in a hotel with higher outdoor air ventilation rates, and this is incorrect. Since
formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products increase with increasing
outdoor air ventilation rates, the formaldehyde emission rates in hotels will be higher as a
result of the higher outdoor air ventilation rates in hotels.
The fact that indoor formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products increase
with increasing outdoor air ventilation rates is well established, and the result of
formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products being diffusion limited.
Figure 1 depicts the increase in formaldehyde emission rates as a function of the outdoor
air exchange range rate and clearly shows that the emission rates increase as the outdoor
air exchange rate increases.
The three data points labeled CNHS - Brentwood are from a CNHS home (Offermann,
2009) where in a follow up study (Offermann, 2012) the formaldehyde emission rates
were measured under three different mechanical outdoor air ventilations, 0.21, 0.37, and
0.64 air changes per hour (ach). The corresponding measured formaldehyde emission
rates were observed to increase in accordance with mass transfer theory, 17 µg/m3-h, 25
µg/m3-h, and 31 µg/m3-h. These homes were constructed with composite wood products
manufactured prior to the CARB ATCM (CARB, 2009) which reduced 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.
4 of 15
Figure 1. Formaldehyde emission rates as a function of outdoor air exchange rate.
The 55 data points labeled HENGH are from the Chan (2009) study which was conducted
in homes constructed with CARB ACTM Phase 2 composite wood products and with
corrections to the measured indoor formaldehyde concentrations and the calculated
outdoor air ventilation rates as described in the peer reviewed published paper in Indoor
Air (Singer et. al., 2020). Specifically the corrections cited in the Singer (2020)
publication of the HENGH study were related to the measurement of the indoor
formaldehyde concentrations and the calculated outdoor air exchange rates. The indoor
formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers,
which were estimated to under-measure the true formaldehyde concentrations by
approximately 7.5%. The outdoor air exchange rates in the HENGH study were not
measured and were calculated from the measured mechanical ventilation air flow rates
and the calculated envelope air infiltration rate, which were estimated to under-measure
the true outdoor air exchange rate by approximately 18%. The combined result is that the
formaldehyde emission rates calculated in the HENGH study are estimated to be
5 of 15
approximately 27% lower than the true formaldehyde emission rates. This correction has
been applied to the HENGH emission rate in Figure 1. As can be seen in Figure 1, the
formaldehyde emission rates in the HENGH study homes, which were constructed with
CARB ATCM Phase 2 composite wood products, are lower than the emission rate in the
CNHS-Brentwood home, which was not constructed with CARB ATCM Phase 2
composite wood products.
The following are our calculations for the indoor formaldehyde concentrations
experienced by hotel housekeepers that work primarily in guest rooms. The code required
outdoor air ventilation rates as summarized in Title 24 Part 6 CEC (the same code cited
by ARTI) for hotel guest rooms is the larger of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2. For
typical occupancy densities of these spaces the code requirement is 0.15 cfm/ft2, which
for spaces with a 9 ft ceiling height is 1.0 air changes per hour.
We have assumed that the composite wood loading (ft2 of composite wood per ft3 of
indoor air) in hotel guest rooms is similar to that in the homes of the HENGH study,
although the actual composite wood loadings in hotel guest rooms are likely higher.
From the HENGH formaldehyde emission rate data in Figure 1, we estimate that
formaldehyde emission rates in hotel guest rooms that are constructed with a similar
loading of composite wood products as in a residence and with an outdoor air exchange
rate of 1.0 ach, is 19.9 µg/m3-h, and the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentration
(emission rate divided by outdoor air exchange rate) is 19.9 µg/m3 (16.3 ppb).
While this calculated indoor formaldehyde concentration of 19.9 µg/m3 for hotel guest
rooms is lower than the 22.4 µg/m3 that we estimated in our initial April 28, 2020
comments, this concentration still results in an exposure for the housekeepers that
exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
The calculated 70-year lifetime average formaldehyde daily dose resulting from the
housekeepers work in the hotel is 65.1 µg/day, which exceeds the NSRL (OEHHA,
2017a) of 40 µg/day. This formaldehyde exposure for the housekeepers represents a
cancer risk of 16.3 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million by
6 of 15
a factor of 1.63.
This calculated formaldehyde exposure assumes that the housekeepers work 8 hours per
day, 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age
65), while inhaling a total of 7.41m3 of air per 8-hour workday. We estimated the 7.41 m3
of inhaled air for the hotel housekeepers from the ARTI Appendix C inhalation rate data,
Table 3.23b, Minute Ventilation rates for OEHHA Age Groups in L/Min (Males and
Females Combines). We utilized the mean inhalation data (L/min) for the 16-70 year age
group, which is provided for three activity levels: sedentary & passive activities (Met ≤
1.5), light intensity activities (Met >1.5 and ≤ 3.0), and moderate intensity activities (Met
> 3.0 and ≤ 6.0). For housekeepers we assumed that an 8-hour workday consisted of 80%
light intensity activities (12.56 L/min) and 20% moderate intensity activities (26.95
L/min) for an average workday inhalation of 7.41 m3.
Comment #2. Exposure Duration (ED) for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation.
ARTI argues that the exposure duration of 45 years (i.e., start at age 20 and retire at age
65) “appears to be a long duration and that the “corrected value per DTCS is 25 years” is
more realistic. We believe that our assumption of 45 years provides a cancer risk that is
appropriate as it considers the cancer risk of all employees, including those loyal
employees that work there entire career at the hotel.
Comment #3. Inhalation Rate (InhR) for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation.
ARTI argues that the correct inhalation rate for “hotel workers” is between 12.49 and
12.9 m3/day, and is substantiated respectively in Appendix C of the ARTI comments,
Table 3.23b, Minute Ventilation rates for OEHHA Age Groups in L/Min (Males and
Females Combined) and in a Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene (Plog, 2012) chapter,
Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology. ARTI states that a “conservative” inhalation value
is 13 m3/day, and that the workday inhalation is 4.43 m3 for the 8-hour workday (i.e. one
third of 13 m3/day). For the calculations in our initial April 28, 2020 comment we
assumed that the inhalation rate of the hotel workers was higher, 20 m3/day, and 6.67 m3
for the 8-hour work day (i.e. one third of 20 m3/day).
7 of 15
The Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology chapter cited by ARTI in support of the
assumption of an inhalation rate of 13 m3/day, is simply a general statement by the
chapter authors that “in a normal day, you breathe some 3,300 gal (12.49 L) of air”. The
12.9 L/day that ARTI derives from Table 3.23b, Minute Ventilation rates for OEHHA
Age Groups in L/Min (Males and Females Combined), appears to be calculated assuming
50% sedentary & passive light intensity activities (5.27 L/min) and 50% light intensity
activities (12.56 L/min), which translates into a daily inhalation rate of 12.84 m3/day,
which is close to the 12.9 m3/day cited by ARTI. But these activity levels are not
representative of the workday activity level of hotel workers. Hotel workers are not
engaged in sedentary & passive light intensity activities (i.e. sleeping) at work for 50% of
the 8-hour work day.
For the cancer risk calculations from inhalation of formaldehyde at work, what is needed
is the inhalation for the workday, not the average for a 24-hour day, which includes
sleeping. To calculate the inhalation rate specifically for a hotel housekeeper during an 8-
hour workday we used the same OEHHA inhalation data as ARTI and assumed that the
workday consisted of 80% light intensity activities (12.56 L/min) and 20% moderate
intensity activities (26.95 L/min). The result is that the inhalation for the hotel
housekeeper during an 8-hour workday is 7.41 m3.
In conclusion, ARTI states that a “conservative” inhalation rate for hotel workers is 13
m3/day, or 4.33 m3 per 8-hour workday, however this is much less than the actual 7.41 m3
per 8-hour workday inhalation rate for hotel housekeepers.
Comment #4. Other Significant Mitigating Factors for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk
Calculation.
a.) The source of formaldehyde emissions will not remain constant.
ARTI argues that the “source of formaldehyde emissions will not remain constant for 45
years duration of employment of the worker as assumed by IEE, but will decay on an
exponential curve overtime as indicated by several experiments conducted by various
8 of 15
research organizations (see Appendix “D”)”. In Table S1, ARTI cites six studies of long-
term formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products. Four of the six studies
present data on “raw” composite wood boards and are not representative of the
formaldehyde emission rates from the composite wood products used in construction.
The composite wood product used in construction are not “raw” with surfaces exposed
directly to the indoor air, rather the products have a covering or laminate on the air side
surface of the composite wood product, which reduces the formaldehyde emission rates
allowing for the emissions to persist for decades. The persistence of formaldehyde
emission rates from laminated composite wood products is discussed in the 2016 paper
Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring
Manufactured in China (Offermann, 2016). In this paper, the reduction in the
formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products is modeled using a double
exponential curve fit developed by Brown (2002). The fast decay time constant of 0.0014
h-1 represents a half-life of just 21 days and is believed to be associated with the release of
residual free-formaldehyde from the manufacturing process. The slow decay time
constant of 0.0000011 h-1 represents a half-life of 71.9 years and is believed to be the
result of formaldehyde released by hydrolysis of the urea-formaldehyde resin in the
composite woods caused by normal exposure to water vapor in the indoor air.
To assess the impact of the reduction of the formaldehyde emission rates over time on the
hotel workers exposure to formaldehyde, we used the Brown (2002) model to calculate
the indoor concentrations over the 45 year period of exposure we have assumed for the
hotel workers. In addition, for the hotel concentration at 2 years we utilized the 19.9
µg/m3, we calculated in our response to Comment #1 from the HENGH residential study
formaldehyde emission rates and the hotel guest room ventilation rate of 1.0 ach. We
utilized the HENGH modeled concentration of 19.9 µg/m3 for the hotel concentration at 2
years because the median age of the HENGH homes was 2 years at the time of the study.
Table 1 summarizes the modeled hotel indoor formaldehyde concentrations for a 45 year
period.
9 of 15
Table 1. Modeled 45 year hotel indoor formaldehyde concentrations.
Year Hotel Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration
(µg/m3)
0 46.0
0.25 21.4
2 19.9
25 15.9
45 13.2
As can be seen in Table 1, the initial indoor formaldehyde concentration is 46 µg/m3 and
this concentration rapidly reduces to 21.4 µg/m3 in 3 months (0.25 years), and then the
concentration is slowly reduced over the modeled period of 45 years to a concentration of
13.2 µg/m3. The resulting 45 year average hotel indoor formaldehyde concentration is
16.5 µg/m3, which is just 17% lower than the continuous 19.9 µg/m3 concentration we
assumed in our cancer risk calculations in our response to Comment #1. We note that this
calculation assumes that no new composite wood products are installed in the hotel
during the 45 year period. Since hotels are expected to have renovations during the 45
year period, the introduction of new composite wood products will result in higher indoor
formaldehyde concentrations than those calculated here.
In conclusion, while the formaldehyde emission rates from composite wood products in
the hotel will reduce some over time, the 45 year average concentration of 16.5 µg/m3
still represents a significant cancer risk to the hotel housekeepers. Using the same
inhalation rates and period of employment that we used in our response to Comment #1,
the cancer risk for the hotel housekeepers is 13.5 per million, which exceeds the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million by a factor of 1.35.
b.) The hotel workers lung capacity decreases with age, starting at 25 years.
ARTI argues that the inhalation rate “is based on human lung capacity, which reaches a
maximum capacity by age 25 and then generally starts to decrease by about 20-25% from
the age of about 35 to the age of 65. (American Lung Association; www.lungs.org).
10 of 15
Therefore, the inhalation rate is not a constant, but decreases with age.”
This is incorrect. Inhalation rates are based upon lung capacity and the respiration rate
(i.e., breaths per minute). For the hotel housekeepers to maintain the metabolic rate (Met
Units) required to perform their work, a sufficient inhalation rate is required. If a hotel
worker’s lung capacity is reduced as they age then the respiration rate must increase
correspondingly to maintain the required metabolic rate.
In conclusion, while the lung capacity of the hotel workers may decrease as they age, the
inhalation rate does not decrease.
c.) The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and US EPA has current formaldehyde
regulations that require further reduction of formaldehyde source emissions from
composite wood products
ARTI argues that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and US EPA has current
formaldehyde regulations that require further reduction of formaldehyde source
emissions from composite wood products like plywood and furniture (see Appendix “E”).
Therefore, due to current state and federal regulations mandating continued source
reduction, it is anticipated that wood composite products used for future construction like
the proposed Project will have reduced formaldehyde emissions than currently or in the
past with reduced associated health risk.
This is incorrect. Neither the California Air Resources Board (CARB) nor the US EPA
have any plans to “further” reduce the formaldehyde emission rates from those in the
current regulations.
Thus, the ARTI conclusion that the “proposed Project will have reduced formaldehyde
emissions than currently or in the past with reduced associated health risk” is incorrect. In
addition, as we noted in Appendix A of our initial April 28, 2020 comments “Indoor
Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM”, 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
11 of 15
doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used
without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks
that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy”.
d.) Cal/OSHA permissible exposure limit of formaldehyde at work.
ARTI argues “As stated in the Title 8 above, the permitted worker exposure (IEE Report
calculated risk based on employee of hotel) allowed in safe work place environment by
Cal/OSHA for airborne formaldehyde is 750 ppb (TWA)”.
This is incorrect. The Cal/OSHA Permissible Exposure Level an 8-hour workday
exposure to formaldehyde is 750 ppb (923 µg/m3). The Cal/OSHA formaldehyde
regulations regulate occupational exposures, and these regulation do not insure that
formaldehyde exposures are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. The
formaldehyde exposure for a worker exposed to the OSHA 8-hour Permissible Exposure
Level (PEL) of 750 ppb (923 µg/m3) using the same inhalation rates and period of
employment that we used in our response to Comment #1 results in a 70 time lifetime
average daily exposure of 3,018 µg/day, which exceeds the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of
40 µg/day. This formaldehyde exposure represents a cancer risk of 755 per million,
which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million by a factor of 75.
In conclusion, the Cal/OSHA formaldehyde regulations clearly do not insure a cancer
risk below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
For this Project to achieve an indoor formaldehyde concentration that does not pose a
cancer risk for hotel workers that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million, the
Project has two options:
1.) Only use 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, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl
acetate, or methylene diisocyanate. Note that even composite wood products
manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do
not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the
12 of 15
OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission
rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2
emission rates.
2.) If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in
construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined
in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product,
the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation
rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this
impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or
incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the
procedure described in our April 28, 2020 report “Indoor Air Quality: 840 El Camino
Real Hotel Project – South San Francisco, CA (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.
References
Brown, S. 2002. Volatile Organic Pollutants in New and Established Buildings in
Melbourne, Australia. Indoor Air, 12, 55-63.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 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
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.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65
Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable
13 of 15
Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf
Offermann, F.J., Maddalena, R., Offermann, J., Singer, B.C., and Wilhelm, H. “The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences”, Healthy Buildings, 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
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. 2016. Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China. Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent
.
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air
Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol
30, Issue 5, 885-899.
14 of 15
APPENDIX A
Preliminary Response Report to Lozeau Drury, LLP Letter Dated May 14,
2020 (Draft regarding our April 28, 2020 report “Indoor Air Quality: 840 El
Camino Real Hotel Project – South San Francisco, CA.
Applied Remedial Technologies Inc.
June 30, 2020.
PRELIMINARY RESPONSE REPORT
TO
LOZEAU DRURY, LLP LETTER DATED MAY 14, 2020
(DRAFT)
Proposed Fairfield Inn Hotel Development
840 El Camino Real
South San Francisco, California 94080
Prepared for:
South City Partners, LLC
1819 Montecito Way
Burlingame, CA 94010
June 30, 2020
ART Project No. 1840-01
Moriah Farrah Apri Ghuman, PE, CIH
Project Scientist Principal Engineer
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
i
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Response to Comment III A ............................................................................................... 2
2.2 Response to Comment III B 1 ........................................................................................... 10
2.3 Response to Comment III B 2 ........................................................................................... 13
2.4 Response to Comments III C through G ........................................................................... 19
3.0 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 20
4.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 21
APPENDICES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2019 Title 24 CEC (California Energy Code) & CBC (California Building Code) Relevant
Sections
Exposure Duration By State Office of Human And Ecological Risk, Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC)
Inhalation Rate By State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) And By
Fundamentals Of Industrial Hygiene (Plog & Quinlain, Page 48)
Summary Of Long-Term Formaldehyde Emission Measurements And Empirical Models
Reported In Literature
Key Requirements of CARB and US EPA Regulations To Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions
From Composite Wood Products
Cal/OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit For Formaldehyde At Work Place
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 – Special Provisions
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.030 – Maximum Permissible Sound Levels
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Response Report has been prepared by Applied Remedial Technologies Inc. (ARTI) on
behalf of South City Partners, LLP to address comments related to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration Report (“IS/MND”) prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc (Rincon) for proposed development of
the subject property (“Project”) as a Fairfield Inn located at 840 El Camino Real in South San Francisco,
California (Site).
The comments to the IS/MND were provided in a letter dated May 14, 2020 from Lozeau Drury, LLP
(“Lozeau Drury”) representing the Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No. 270
and its members living in and around the City of South San Francisco (“LIUNA”). The comments in the
Lozeau Drury letter were prepared with reference from the following three (3) technical reports attached
as exhibits to the letter:
Indoor Air Analysis by Francis J. Offermann, PE, CIH of Indoor Environmental Engineering
(“IEE”) as Exhibit A.
Noise Analysis by Derek L. Watry of Wilson Ihrig Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants
(“WIC”) as Exhibit B.
Criteria Pollutants, Air Toxics and GHG Emission Analysis by Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD of
SWAPE Technical Consultants (“SWAPE”) as Exhibit C.
The responses prepared in this report are based on evaluating the merit of the assumptions and references
used in the aforementioned technical reports, and are consistent with generally accepted scientific consulting
principles and practices that are within the limitations described in Section 3.0.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
2
2.0 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
The following are the responses in chronological order to the comments described in the Lozeau Drury
letter.
2.1 RESPONSE TO COMMENT III A – “There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument
that the Project Will Have Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality
Impacts.”
Comment III A was based on exposure and subsequent cancer risk of 16.4 per million population (which
is above the CEQA threshold of 10.0 cancer risk per million) from formaldehyde inhalation as estimated
in the IEE Report (Exhibit A of Lozeau Drury letter). However, as shown below the actual estimated
cancer from formaldehyde inhalation is at 0.26 per million, which is between one to two orders-of-
magnitude lower (about 50 times lower) than the IEE estimate of 16.4 per million, and far below the
aforementioned CEQA threshold.
The IEE Report did not provide any detail on the how it estimated the cancer risk from formaldehyde
inhalation exposure. So ARTI retraced the steps IEE used to estimate the risk, which allowed an
understanding into the assumptions and references used and their validity.
The estimated risk of 16.4 per million estimated by IEE was based on inhalation exposure to
formaldehyde to a full-time worker employed at the hotel for a period of 45 years being continuously
exposed at a steady-state formaldehyde airborne concentration of 18.2 ppb (parts per billion), with no
allowance for decrease in airborne formaldehyde concentration exposure for the full time period of 45
years.
The airborne concentration of 18. 2 ppb used for risk calculation by IEE was obtained from the Chan
Report (page 70) that examined ventilation in “residential homes” that were mostly “built between 2012
and 2016” (Chan, 2019).
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
3
The following steps were reconstructed by ARTI to arrive at the 16.4 per million cancer risk from
airborne formaldehyde exposure as shown in the IEE Report:
STEP 1 – Convert Airborne Formaldehyde Concentration Units From ppb to g/m3:
Given:
i) Formaldehyde Airborne Concentration (Cppb)= 18.2 ppb (per IEE Report based on Chan Report
for residential homes)
ii) Molecular Weight (MW) = 30 grams/mole
iii) Volume of formaldehyde in gaseous form at 25oC (at NTP per NIOSH/AIHA) = 24.45 moles/liter
Calculate:
i) Formaldehyde Airborne Concentration (Cg/m3 in g/m3)
Equation & Calculation:
i) Cg/m3 = (Cppb x MW)/24.45 = (18.2 x 30)/24.45 = 22.4 g/m3
STEP 2 – Calculate Formaldehyde Work Exposure Dose (WED) Per Day (in g/day):
Given:
i) Formaldehyde Air Concentration (Cg/m3) = 22.4 g/m3
ii) Inhalation Rate for 24-hr Day (InhR) = 20 m3/day
iii) Work Duration (WD) = 8 hours (worker shift)
Calculate:
i) Work Exposure Dose (WED) in g/day
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
4
Equation & Calculation:
i) Work Exposure Dose (WED) = Cg/m3 x (InhR/24) x WD = 22.4 x (20/24) x 8 = 149 g/day
STEP 3 - Calculate Formaldehyde Life-Time Exposure Dose (LED) Per Day (in g/day):
Given:
i) Work Exposure Dose (WED) = 149 g/day
ii) Exposure Frequency (EF) = 250 days per year (5 days/week for 50 weeks/year)
iii) Exposure Duration (ED) = 45 years
iv) Averaging Time (AT) = 25,550 days (365 days/year x 70-year lifetime)
Calculate:
i) Lifetime Exposure Dose (LED) in g/day
Equation & Calculation:
i) LED = (WED x EF x ED)/AT = (149 x 250 x 45)/25,550 = 65.8 g/day
STEP 4: Estimate Cancer Risk (per 1,000,000) from Formaldehyde Inhalation Exposure
Given:
i) NSRL (No Significant Risk Level) for Formaldehyde (per OEHHA & IIE Report) = 40 g/day
ii) Lifetime Exposure Dose (LED) = 65.8 g/day
Calculate:
i) Risk (per 1,000,000)
Equation & Calculation:
Risk (per 1,000,000) = (10 x LED)/NSRL = (10 x 65.8)/40 = 16.4 per Million
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
5
ACTUAL ESTIMATE OF FORMALDEHYDE CANCER RISK & COMPLIANCE
The calculations presented above generated an estimated cancer risk of 16.4 per million population as
shown in IEE report (Page 4 of 19). However, this risk presented by IEE is between one and two orders-
of-magnitude higher (about 50 times higher) than the actual risk estimated by ARTI for several reasons
including the following:
i) Ventilation Rate (Title 24 CEC for Commercial versus Residential Homes) Factor for
Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation:
The proposed Project for a hotel (commercial setting) will be designed per 2019 Title 24 California
Energy Code (T24_2019 Commercial) for Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). The natural or mechanical
ventilation system will be designed by using one of the following two methods (use larger value as per
code) to estimate outdoor air flow rate delivery to hotel space (see Appendix “A” for more detail on
T24_2019 Commercial):
VZ = Ra x AZ (Method A)
Where,
VZ = Outdoor Airflow Rate to the Zone (cfm; cubic feet per minute)
Ra = 0.50 (Outdoor Airflow Rate required per unit Area for Hotel Lobbies and multi-function, Table
120.1-A of T24_2019)
AZ = Zone Floor Area is the net occupiable Floor Area of the ventilation (square feet)
OR
VZ = Rp x PZ (Method B)
Where,
Rp = 15 cubic feet per minute of Outdoor Air Flow per Person
PZ = Expected Number of Occupants (1 per 15 square feet of maximum Floor Area; Table 1004.5 2019
California Building Code)
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
6
The IEE report used ventilation rates and concentrations of residential homes (mostly built between 2012
and 2014) provided in the Chan Report (Chan, 2019) that were designed per applicable residential Title
24 code for ventilation at the time they were built by either using the Fan Ventilation Method (FVRM) or
the Total Ventilation Rate Method (TVRM) as shown below:
Reference: Page 28, Chan Report
Reference: Page 29, Chan Report
By observation, it is clear that air flow rates for ventilation for a hotel lobby or multi-purpose areas
(designed per T24_2019 Commercial) are about 20 times higher than for residential homes (designed per
T24_2008 or T24_2013 Residential), and can be demonstrated by using an example, say using a floor
area of 2,000 square feet, then:
Ventilation Rate (Commercial, T24_2019) = Rp x PZ (using Method B shown above)
i.e. VRCOMMERCIAL = [15(2000/15)] = 2,000 cfm (cubic feet per minute)
(Note: Method A will give a value for VRCOMMERCIAL as 1,000 cfm; per code use the higher value of
Method A or B, which is 2,000 cfm)
And,
Ventilation Rate (Residential, T24_2013) = 0.03 x 2000 +7.5 (3 + 1); for 3-Bedroom Home
i.e. VRRESIDENTIAL = 60 +7.5 x 4 = 90 cfm (cubic feet per minute) by TVRM Method
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
7
So,
(VRCOMMERCIAL/ VRRESIDENTIAL = (2,000/90) = 22.22
Therefore, the Ventilation Rates for outdoor air delivery are substantially higher for commercial than
residential; at about 22 times higher and has been illustrated by using an example floor area of 2,000
square feet for each the hotel (commercial) and the residential homes (residential).
Further, the Air Exchange Rates (AER) were compared between the proposed hotel Project (commercial)
and the residential homes (residential). For example, for a floor area of say 2,000 square feet with a
ceiling height of 9 feet, then:
AERCOMMERCIAL = [(VRCOMMERCIAL x 60)/(Floor Area x Height]
= (2,000 x 60)/(2000 x 9) = 6.67 air exchanges per hour
And,
AERRESIDENTIAL = [(VRRESIDENTIAL x 60)/(Floor Area x Height]
= (90 x 60)/(2,000 x 9) = 0.30 air exchanges per hour (Note, this value is
consistent with the AER values obtained from the residential homes study in Chan Report as shown
below).
Reference, Page 60 of Chan Report
So,
(AERCOMMERCIAL/ AERRESIDENTIAL = (6.67/0.3) = 22
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
8
Further, at steady-state the Ventilation Rates (VR) has an inverse relationship to the airborne
concentration of formaldehyde (Cppb) as governed by the following ventilation equation:
VR = K[Q/( Cppb x 10-9)]
Where,
VR = Ventilation Rate (in cfm)
K = Dilution Constant
Q = Emission Rate of Formaldehyde from the material (in cfm)
Cppb = Airborne Formaldehyde Concentration (in ppb)
Therefore,
(Cppb COMMERCIAL/ Cppb RESIDENTIAL) = (VRRESIDENTIAL/VRCOMMERCIAL)
As a result, the value of airborne formaldehyde concentration value of Cppb = 18.2 ppb in the residential
homes study in the Chan Report (Chan, 2019) that was used in the IEE Report to calculate to risk for a
hotel worker (commercial setting) will have to be reduced proportionally by a factor of Ventilation Rate
ratio between commercial and residential settings, i.e. by a factor 0.045 (i.e. = 1/22.22). Therefore the
formaldehyde cancer risk estimated by IEE should be reduced due to much higher ventilation rate ( about
22 times higher) by a Reduction Factor, RF1 = 0.045.
ii) Exposure Duration (ED) for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation
The Exposure Duration (ED) parameter is established by the State Office of Human and Ecological Risk,
California Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC (see Appendix “B”). The IEE Report
assumed that the hotel worker will work continuously for 45 years, which appears to be long duration.
The corrected value as per DTSC is 25 years, which appears more realistic, resulting in a risk reduction of
0.55 (i.e. = 25/45). Therefore, the formaldehyde cancer risk estimated by IEE should be reduced by a
Reduction Factor, RF2 = 0.55.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
9
iii) Inhalation Rate (InhR) for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation
The Inhalation Rate (InhR) for the hotel worker as established by the State Office Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and substantiated by Plog & Quinlain (Plog, 2012) is between 12.49 and
12.9 m3/day (see Appendix “C”). The IEE Report used an InhR value of 20 m3/day, which is high for
worker in a hotel setting. Using a conservative InhR value of 13 m3/day will result in the risk reduction
by a factor of 0.65 (i.e. = 13/20). Therefore, the formaldehyde cancer risk estimated in the IEE should be
reduce by a Reduction Factor, RF3 = 0.65.
Therefore, the estimated actual cancer risk from inhalation of formaldehyde by a hotel worker will
substantially less than the risk estimated by IEE of 16.4 per 1,000,000 after factoring in the following:
Actual Risk (per 1,000,000) = (RF1)(RF2)(RF3) x RiskIEE
= (0.045)(0.55)(0.65) x 16.4
= (0.016) x 16.4 = 0.26 per Million
iv) Other Significant Mitigating Factors for Formaldehyde Cancer Risk Calculation
There are other mitigating factors that would reduce the estimated formaldehyde risk calculated by
IEE Report, but may not necessary at this time. They include:
a) The source of formaldehyde emissions will not remain constant for 45 years duration of
employment of the worker as assumed by IEE, but will decay on an exponential curve over
time as indicated by several experiments conducted by various research organizations (see
Appendix “D”).
b) Inhalation Rate (InhR) is based on human lung capacity, and reaches maximum capacity by
age 25 and then generally starts to decrease by about 20-25% from the age of about 35 to the
age of 65. (American Lung Association; www.lungs.org). Therefore, the inhalation rate is
not a constant, but decreases with age.
c) The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and US EPA has current formaldehyde
regulations that require further reduction of formaldehyde source emissions from composite
wood products like plywood and furniture (see Appendix “E”). Therefore, due to current
state and federal regulations mandating continued source reduction, it is anticipated that wood
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
10
composite products used for future construction like the proposed Project will have reduced
formaldehyde emissions than currently or in the past with reduced associated health risk.
CAL/OSHA PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT OF FORMALDEHYDE AT WORK
Also, the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA sets exposure standards in work place environment in
California. Per Cal/OSHA and as listed Title 8 Section 5217 as attached in Appendix “F”), the
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for formaldehyde is as following:
(1) Time Weighted Average (TWA): The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to a
concentration of airborne formaldehyde which exceeds 0.75 parts formaldehyde per million parts
of air (0.75 ppm or 750 ppb) as an 8-hour TWA.
(2) Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL): The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to a
concentration of airborne formaldehyde which exceeds two parts formaldehyde per million parts
of air (2 ppm or 2,000 ppb) as a 15 minute STEL.
As stated in the Title 8 above, the permitted worker exposure (IEE Report calculated risk based on
employee of hotel) allowed in safe work place environment by Cal/OSHA for airborne formaldehyde is
750 ppb (TWA) and 2,000 (ppb) , which are about 40 to 110 times higher than 18.2 ppb value in the
IEE Report.
In summary, the estimated cancer risk from formaldehyde exposure to hotel worker is insignificant at
0.26 per million, which well below the CEQA threshold. Also, the airborne formaldehyde exposure are
well below the Cal/OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) for safety at a work place environment.
2.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENT III B 1 – “There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument
that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Contrary to the IS/MND’s conclusion,
the Project will have a significant noise impact form noise generated during Project construction.”
Comment III B is based on the WIC Report (Exhibit B of the Lozeau Drury letter) that the noise analysis
IS-MND does not meet the City of South Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Section 8.32.050(d)(2)
that “The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB” (as
reference please see SSFMC Section 8.32.030 in Appendix “F” and as shown below.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
11
Firstly, the SSFMC noise code requires the Project to “MEET AT LEAST ONE” not both criterion on
construction noise limitations per Section 8.32.050(d)(1) and 8.32.050(d)(2) as shown below. The
corrected analysis performed hereunder indicates estimated Project construction noise levels to be below
90 dbA at 25 feet (meets Section 8.32.050(d)(1) requirement).
SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d):
“Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city
permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the
hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or
at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise
limitations:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-
five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made
outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB.”
Per SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d)(1), the noise calculation for “loudest” individual piece of equipment is
required at a distance of 25 feet. But the WIC Report used a distance of 15 feet as shown below:
Reference: Page 3 of WIC Report
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
12
The corrected noise calculation of the “loudest” individual piece of equipment is required at a distance of 25
feet per SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d)(1) and compliance with the 90 dbA limitation is shown below:
CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
LOUDEST
INDIVIDUAL
EQUIPMENT
Lmax (MAX
LEVEL AT 50
FEET)1
Lmax (MAX
LEVEL at 25
FEET)2
HAS
SSFMC SECTION
8.32.050(d)(1)
LIMITATION OF Lmax
AT 25 FEET< 90 dbA
BEEN MET?
Demolition Excavator 80.7 dbA 86.7 dbA YES
Grading Compactor (ground) 83.2 dbA 89.2 dbA YES
Site Preparation Compactor (ground) 83.2 dbA 89.2 dbA YES
Building Construction Crane & Generator 80.6 dbA 86.6 dbA YES
Paving & Coatings Paver 77.2 dbA 83.2 dbA YES
Reference: 1. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Version 1.1 and used in IN-MND
2. Lmax (25 ft) = Lmax (50 ft) + 20 Log (50/25)
Furthermore, on a side note, the aforementioned noise levels in table above are conservative as the noise
calculations have not taken into account any shielding effects (typical reduction of noise by 5 dbA or higher)
from excavated walls (approximately -22.0 feet below current grade; see below) during major construction
phase activities related to grading, site preparation and building construction.
Reference: Section 2 of Sheet A-14 of Proposed Development Drawing Plan Set
In summary, the impact from Project construction noise is insignificant, and will comply by construction
noise regulations as outlined in SSFMC Code 8.32.030.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
13
2.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENT III B 2 – “There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument
that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Project construction will have a
significant impact on ambient noise which was not analyzed in the IS/MND.”
Comment III B 2 is based on noise impact analysis in the WIC Report (Exhibit B of Lozeau Drury letter).
Firstly, there are no requirements to evaluate exceedance of “construction noise” above “ambient” noise
levels under SSFMC Section 8.32.050 Special Provisions (see Appendix “G”), except that construction
noise levels are required to be below a certain threshold (for e.g. below 90 dbA at 25 feet during
construction hours), which is the case as shown in the previous section above.
Secondly, ambient noise levels and exceedance are required in another section of the SSFMC code, which
is more related to noise levels, for example, during operations of the Project proposed as a hotel (Section
8.32.030, see Appendix “H”). This section titled “Maximum Permissible Sound Levels” provides the
“noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level” based on zoning of the operated property.
The IS/MND measured ambient noise levels (as shown in table below, and further illustrated as
approximate Locations 1 and 2 in GREEN circles in WIC sketch for front and back of Project Site,
respectively) and estimated that noise impacts from operation of the Project proposed as a hotel would be
less than significant and not exceed the ambient standards per SSFMC Section 8.32.030 (see pages 100
and 101 of IS/MND).
(Reference: Table 13, Page 97 of IS/MND)
The WIC Report provided an analysis of impacts of construction-related noise to “ambient” levels even
though are there are no ambient noise impact requirements per code as such from construction-related
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
14
activities as provided under the SSFMC Section 8.32.050 for special provisions, and therefore may be
unnecessary.
However, we still have proceeded to evaluate this aspect of the WIC Report, which reduced the measured
ambient Leq of 63.4 dbA (at approximate Location 2 at back of Project Site, adjacent to back of “A
Street” residences per above Table 13 of IS/MND) by 5 dbA (wall effect that reduces “ambient noise
source” located on the Site-side of the property line as illustrated in sketch below and shown on Page 4 of
its report) to arrive at an ambient Leq of 58.4 dbA in the backyards of the residences (A Street) located in
the rear of the Site (at approximate Location 3).
Reference: Page 4 of WIC Report. All Notations added by ARTI are shown in GREEN color.
The WIC analysis then proceeded to use the Leq values of 86.4, 87.4, 89.3, 88.9 and 82.2 dbA for
Demolition, Grading, Site Prep, Construction and Paving, respectively. (values from Appendix NOI of
IS/MND) in the RCNM model. In the model a distance of 80 feet (50 feet distance from center of the
Project Site to rear property line, plus another 30 feet from the rear property line to the center the rear
neighbor backyards on “A Street”) was used to estimate Leq (from construction phases) at the center of
the rear backyard of the “A Street” neighbors (illustrated above by approximate Location 3 in GREEN
circle in WIC sketch) and as shown in WIC table below.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
15
Reference: Page 4 of WIC Report
WIC ambient noise analysis assumed that the source(s) of all ambient noise are from the El Camino Real
direction (Lamb-primary) and proceeded in reduction of ambient noise Leq of 63.4 dbA (from Table 13 of
IS/MND, back of Project Site) at Location 2 by 5db (due to elevation drop or wall barrier) to arrive at a
Leq of 58.4 dbA at Location 3 (center of neighbor backyards). WIC analysis did not consider the
following:
Contributary ambient noise sources from directions other than from the El Camino Real direction
(i.e. grouped as other or secondary sources grouped and shown GREEN in WIC sketch as Lamb-
secondary) were neglected. In fact, as shown below the ambient noise contribution from Lamb-
secondary is comparable to Lamb-primary , and will increase in the direction going from the back of
the Project (Location 2) towards Location 3 (middle of neighbors backyard at the rear) and should
be included in calculating ambient levels at Location 3.
Also, the standards used to determine the Maximum Permissible Sound Levels above the ambient
noise levels are based on Lmax and not Leq, per following : 1) noise standard defined as “noise
level standard or the maximum measured ambient level” per SSFMC Section 8.32.030 and Table
8.32.030), and “noise level” defined as “the maximum sound level by a source or group of
sources” per SSFMC Section 8.32.020. Therefore, ambient noise exceedance and compliance
calculations should have used maximum measured ambient level (measured ambient noise level,
Lmax of 83.7 dbA instead of Leq of 63.4 dbA from Table 13 of IS/MND) as the standard in the
WIC analysis.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
16
CALCULATION OF AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL STANDARD & COMPLIANCE (at Location 3)
STEP 1 – Estimate Ambient Noise Contribution from ECR Sources (Traffic) at Location 2
(L2maxamb-primary at back of Project Site)
Given:
L1maxamb (at 58 feet) = 77.6 dbA (measured at Location 1 at front of Project Site, per Table 13 on Page
97 of IS/MND. This ambient noise level value at Location 1, which is located at sidewalk/front property
line at about 8 feet from ECR traffic edge, can be considered to have contribution entirely from the ECR
traffic source, which is been indicated as primary ambient source).
L2maxamb (at 150 feet) = 83.7 dbA (measured at Location 2 at back of Project Site per Table 13 on Page
97 of IS/MND)
NOTE: As noted above, the maximum measured ambient levels increase (not decrease) in the direction
from front to rear of Project Site towards the neighbors in the rear, indicating that maximum ambient
levels are much higher in the backyard of the rear neighbors, and at least the maximum measured levels at
Location 2. There are other likely ambient noise sources beyond rear Project Site property line that affect
neighbor backyards, i.e. Location 3, which is at a much higher ambient noise levels than Project Site
property line Location 2. Also, in this case the wall effect (sound barrier) affect should be ADDED and
not SUBTRACTED to estimate maximum ambient levels at Location 3, which additionally can be
considered (not shown), if required in the calculation below.
Calculate:
Contribution of Primary Source (Traffic) at Location 2 (L2maxamb-primary)
Equation & Calculation:
L2maxamb-primary = L1maxamb-primary + 20 Log (58/150) = 77.6 -8.3 = 69.3 dbA
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
17
STEP 2 – Estimate Ambient Noise Contribution from ECR Sources (L2maxamb-primary) and Other
Sources from Neighbor Side (L2maxamb-secondary) at Location 2 (back of Project Site)
Given:
L2maxamb = 83.7 dbA (TOTAL measured at Location 2 at back of Project Site per Table 13 on Page 97
of IS/MND)
L2maxamb-primary = 69.3 dbA
Calculate:
Contribution of Secondary or Other Ambient Sources located beyond the rear Project Site property line at
Location 2 (L2maxamb-secondary)
Equation & Calculation:
L2maxamb (TOTAL) = 10log[antilog (L2maxamb-primary/10) + antilog (L2maxamb-secondary/10) ]
83.7 = 10log[antilog(69.3/10) + antilog(L2maxamb-secondary /10)]
(83.7/10) = log[antilog(6.93) + antilog(L2maxamb-secondary /10)]
antilog (L2maxamb-secondary /10) = 10(8.37) – 10(6.93)
L2maxamb-secondary = (10 x 8.35) = 83.5 dbA
STEP 3 – Estimate Maximum Ambient Noise Level at Location 3 from Maximum ECR Ambient
Sources and Maximum Other or Secondary Ambient Sources
The cumulative maximum ambient noise level at Location 3 ( L3maxamb ) is from maximum primary
ambient sources (traffic from ECR) estimated above at Location 2 at 69.3 dbA (L2maxamb-primary) and from
maximum other or secondary ambient sources estimated above at Location 2 at 83.5 dbA (L2maxamb-
secondary). By using the “adding dB rule of thumb”, the cumulative effect from the maximum primary
ambient sources (that decrease from Site towards rear neighbors) and the maximum other or secondary
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
18
sources (that increase from Site towards rear neighbors), the maximum ambient noise level at Location 3
(L3maxamb) will be 83.5 dbA at a minimum. The compliance of maximum construction noise with the
maximum ambient levels at Location 3 is presented in table below.
CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
Lmax (MAX
LEVEL AT 20
FEET)1
Lmax (MAX
LEVEL AT
LOCATION 3,
WHICH IS AT
80 FEET)2, 3
IS Lmax AT LOCATION 3 LESS
THAN L3maxamb ( 83.5 dbA) AT
LOCATION 3
Demolition 88.7 dbA 80.4 dbA YES
Grading 91.2 dbA 82.9 dbA YES
Site Preparation 91.2 dbA 82.9 dbA YES
Building Construction 88.6 dbA 80.3 dbA YES
Paving & Coatings
85.2 dbA 76.9 dbA YES
Reference 1. RCNM Analysis (Appendix NOI of IS/MND)
2. Maximum Construction Noise Level at Location 3 (center of backyard of
neighbors in rear)
3. Also construction noise from grading, site preparation and building construction
will be further reduced due to shielding effects (typical reduction of noise by 5 dbA
or higher) from excavated walls (approximately -22.0 feet below current grade)
In conclusion, construction-related noise compliance requirement fall under the special provisions that
require no comparative analysis to ambient noise levels. Ambient noise levels analysis (standards are
based on zoning) per SSFMC Section 8.32.030 are required for operation of the Project proposed as a
hotel; which are in compliance (see pages 100 and 101 of IS/MND). Further, ambient noise analysis
for construction-related noise is not required per SSFMC Section 8.32.050, but nonetheless performed
to refute the WIC analysis presented in the Lozeau Drury letter. Therefore, in summary there will be
insignificant impact from Project construction to ambient noise levels.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
19
2.4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS III C THROUGH G
Comments III C through G of the Lozeau Drury letter are based on the SWAPE Report (Exhibit C of
Lozeau Drury letter), and its response is provided by Rincon Consultants, Inc (Rincon) as attached in
Appendix “I”.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
20
3.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared by Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc. (ARTI) for the exclusive use of
South City Partners, LLC (Client) as it pertains to the subject property located at 840 El Camino Real in
South San Francisco, California (Site).
ARTI professional services have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised
under similar circumstances by other engineers and/or scientists practicing in this field. No other
warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice in this report.
ARTI offers no assurances and assumes no responsibility for Site conditions or activities that were outside
the Scope of Work (SOW) outlined in the attached report. In the preparation of this report, ARTI has
relied on the accuracy of documents, oral information, and materials provided by others. No warranty is
expressed or implied with the usage such information or material. This report may contain
recommendations and conclusions, which are generally based on incomplete and/or insufficient
information. However, further investigation may reveal additional information, which may require the
enclosed recommendations and conclusions to be reevaluated.
Prior to use of this report by any party other than the Client, the party should notify ARTI of such intended
use. This report may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. Any
use or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.
The findings set forth in the attached report are strictly limited in time and scope to the date of the
services described herein, and also in scientific tasks or procedures agreed upon per budgeting constraints
imposed by the Client.
Preliminary Response Report Applied Remedial Technologies, Inc.
21
4.0 REFERENCES
Rincon Consultants, Inc, Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration, 840 El Camino Real Project, April
2020 (Rincon, 2020)
American Lung Association, www.lung.org/lung-health-diseases/how-lungs-work/lung-capacity-and-aging
(ALA, 2020)
Chan, Kim, Less, Singer, Walker, Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Gas
Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation, February 2019, (Chan, 2019)
Barbara A. Plog, Patricia J. Quinlain, Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, 6th Edition, 2012 (Plog, 2012)
Zinn et al (1990), CARB (2008), Liang et al (2015), Brown (1999), Liu et al (2015), Chen et al (2018),
Summary of Long-Term Formaldehyde Emission Measurements And Empirical Models Reported In
Literature, (Zinn, 1990-2018)
Lozeau Drury, LLP Letter, Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 840 El
Camino Real Hotel Project, May 14, 2020 (Lozeau Drury)
Francis J. Offermann, PE, CIH, Indoor Air Analysis, Indoor Environmental Engineering (IEE)
Derek L. Watry, Noise Analysis, Wilson Ihrig Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants (WIC)
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD, Criteria Pollutants, Air Toxics and GHG Emission Analysis, SWAPE Technical
Consultants (SWAPE).
South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations
California Air Resources Board, www.arb.ca.gov
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), www.oehha.ca.gov
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), www.dtsc.ca.gov
2019 Title 24 Part 2 (California Building Code) and Part 6 (California Energy Code)
APPENDIX “A”
2019 TITLE 24 CEC (CALIFORNIA ENERGY
CODE) & CBC (CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE)
RELEVANT SECTIONS
APPENDIX “B”
EXPOSURE DURATION BY STATE OFFICE
OF HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK,
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL (DTSC)
HHRA Note Number 1 – Default HHRA Exposure Parameters – 9 April 2019
Page 1
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA) NOTE NUMBER 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBTANCES CONTROL (DTSC)
OFFICE OF HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK (HERO)
ISSUE DATE: April 9, 2019
ISSUE: Recommended DTSC Default Exposure Factors for Use in Risk
Assessment at California Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities.
SUMMARY
The attached table summarizes exposure factors which may be used as default values
in human health risk assessments for California hazardous waste sites and permitted
facilities. The recommended values were obtained primarily from US EPA and Cal-EPA
DTSC guidance documents, and references for each of the exposure factors are
provided.
WHAT’S NEW (April 2019)
The values for child skin surface area for soil contact and the adult and child skin
surface area for the bath/showering scenario were updated to be consistent with the
exposure parameters used to calculate the US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)
and current USEPA guidance1.
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS DISCUSSION
The exposure parameters shown in Table 1 should generally be used to calculate
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) estimates for residential, industrial, and
construction worker receptors. Site-specific data may warrant deviation from these
values. For any cases in which site-specific alternate values are used, appropriate
justification and documentation should be included in the risk assessment report.
1 USEPA OSWER Directive 9200.1-120, Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors
HHRA Note Number 1 – Default HHRA Exposure Parameters – 9 April 2019
Page 2
Inhalation rates are provided in the attached table, US EPA’s Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part F (Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk
Assessment)2 was finalized in January 2009 and should be consulted regarding
recommendations for evaluation of inhalation exposures. RAGS Part F recommends
that concentrations of the chemical in air (e.g. mg/m3) be used to assess risk, rather
than inhalation intake of a contaminant in air based on inhalation rate and body weight
(e.g. mg per kg body weight per day).
Note that the default exposure parameter values listed in this table are summarized for
California hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities, but may not be appropriate for
certain properties and exposure scenarios (e.g. schools). The HERO Section Chiefs3
should be consulted for default exposure factors in such cases.
HERO ISSUE CONTACT PERSON:
Kimberly Gettmann, Ph.D.
Staff Toxicologist
VOICE: 916.255.6685
EMAIL: Kimberly.Gettmann@dtsc.ca.gov
2https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part-f
3Northern California Section (Claudio Sorrentino, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, 916-255-
6656); Southern California Section (Shukla Roy-Semmen, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist,
714-484-5448); Central California Section (Brian Endlich, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist,
510-540-3804); DSMOA Military Facilities Section (Thomas F. Booze, Ph.D., Senior
Toxicologist, 916-255-6653).
HHRA Note Number 1 – Default HHRA Exposure Parameters – 9 April 2019
Page 3
TABLE 1. RECOMMENDED DTSC DEFAULT EXPOSURE FACTORS FOR USE IN
RISK ASSESSMENT AT CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AND
PERMITTED FACILITIES
EXPOSURE
PARAMETERS
Residential
Scenario
Industrial
Scenario
Construction
Scenario
Body weight (BW) (kg)
Adult 80 i 80 i 80 i
Child 15 i
Averaging time (AT)
(days)
Averaging time
carcinogens
25550 a,i 25550 a,i 25550 a,i
Averaging time
noncarcinogens
ED x 365 a,i ED x 365 a,i ED x 365 a,i
Exposure duration
(ED) (year)
Adult 20 i 25 i Site-specific,
HERO default = 1
Child 6 i
Exposure frequency
(EF) (days/yr)
350 i 250 i Site-specific,
HERO default =
250
Exposure duration
(ED) (hours/day)
24 k 8 k
Inhalation rate (InhR)
Adult 20 (m3/day) i 14 m3/day for
the 8 hr
workday b
20 m3/day for
the 8 hr
workday c
Child 10 (m3/day) i
Drinking water
ingestion (IR) (L/day)
Adult 2.5 i 2 c,j 0, HERO default
= 2 if on-site
water is
consumed
Child 0.78 i
Soil ingestion (IR)
(mg/kg)
Adult 100 a,i 100 c 330 c
Child 200 a,i
HHRA Note Number 1 – Default HHRA Exposure Parameters – 9 April 2019
Page 4
EXPOSURE
PARAMETERS
Residential
Scenario
Industrial
Scenario
Construction
Scenario
Particulate emission
factor (PEF) (m3/kg)
1.36E+09 i 1.36E+09 i 1.0E+06 d
Skin surface area for
soil contact (SA) (cm2)
Adult 6032 i 6032 i 6032 i
Child 2373 i
Soil adherence factor
(AF) (mg/cm2)
Adult 0.07 e,i 0.2 e 0.8 e
Child 0.2 e,i
Dermal absorption
fraction (ABS)
(unitless)
Chemical
specific f
Chemical
specific f
Chemical
specific f
Dermal permeability
coefficient from water
(Kp) (cm/hr)
Chemical
specific g
Chemical
specific g
Chemical
specific g
Showering/Bathing
Scenario h,i
Skin surface area for
water contact (SA)
(cm2)
Adult 19,652
Child 6,365
Exposure time (ET)
(hr/day)
Adult 0.71
Child 0.54
Exposure frequency
(EF) (days/yr)
350
HHRA Note Number 1 – Default HHRA Exposure Parameters – 9 April 2019
Page 5
REFERENCES
a US EPA 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (Part A),
EPA/540/1-89/002.
b Cal-EPA DTSC estimated this value based on the following study cited in the US EPA
Exposure Factors Handbook 1997 (EPA/600/P-95/002Fa): Linn W.S, Spier C.E., and
J.D. Hackney. 1993. Activity patterns in ozone-exposed construction workers. J. Occ.
Med. Tox. 2(1): 1-14.
C US EPA 2002, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for
Superfund Sites, OSWER 9355.4-24.
D This PEF value corresponds to a respirable dust concentration of 1 mg/m3. This is
based on a maximum concentration of dust in air of 10 mg/m3 recommended by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH 2004, Threshold
Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices), and the assumption that 10 percent of
the mass of particles are in the respirable PM10 range.
E Cal-EPA DTSC Draft 2000. Draft memorandum from S. DiZio, M. Wade, and D.
Oudiz. Guidance for the Dermal Exposure Pathway. The DTSC recommendations
detailed in the Draft 2000 memorandum were partially based on US EPA RAGS (Part E)
Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim Guidance (1998).
F Consult the PEA Manual, Cal-EPA DTSC, January 1994 (Interim Final-Revised
October 2015), Note that the dermal absorption fraction for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) can be assumed to be 0. This is based on the assumption that VOCs volatilize
from soil on skin and should be evaluated via the inhalation exposure pathway from soil.
G Consult USEPA 2004, RAGS (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk
Assessment), EPA/540/R/99/005. Exhibits B-3 and B-4 list KP values for organic and
inorganic chemicals in water, respectively.
H USEPA 2004, RAGS (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment),
EPA/540/R/99/005.
I USEPA 2014, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of
Standard Default Exposure Factors, OSWER 9200.1-120.
J If exposure pathway is complete for the commercial/industrial worker and/or
construction worker, HERO recommends using 2 liters per day as the drinking water
ingestion rate.
K USEPA 2009, RAGS (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk
Assessment), EPA/540/R/070/002.
APPENDIX “C”
INHALATION RATE BY STATE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD
ASSESSMENT (OEHHA) AND BY
FUNDAMENTALS OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
(PLOG & QUINLAIN, PAGE 48)
Scientific Review Panel Draft February, 2012
3-41
In order to obtain minute ventilation rates that represent age ranges used in risk
assessment for the “Hot Spots” program, age groups in Tables 3.23a-b were weighted
equally by year of age and combined by OEHHA. The male and female data were also
merged assuming 50:50 ratio in the California population. Two of the age groups
combined from the U.S. EPA MET data do not exactly reflect the age ranges used by
OEHHA, but they were judged reasonably close enough to use (i.e., combined MET
ages 2 to <11 yrs represents OEHHA’s 2<9 yr age group; combined MET ages 16 to
<31 yrs represents OEHHA’s 16<30 yr age group).
Table 3.23a. Minute Ventilation Rates for OEHHA Age Groups in L/kg-min (Males
and Females Combined)
0<2
years
2<9
years
2<16
years
16<30
years
16-70
years
Sedentary & Passive Activities (METS < 1.5)
Mean 0.41 0.21 0.17 0.07 0.07
95th Percentile 0.52 0.29 0.24 0.09 0.09
Light Intensity Activities (1.5 < METS < 3.0)
Mean 1.01 0.52 0.42 0.16 0.16
95th Percentile 1.25 0.70 0.56 0.21 0.21
Moderate Intensity Activities (3.0 < METS < 6.0)
Mean 1.86 0.97 0.79 0.36 0.35
95th Percentile 2.40 1.33 1.09 0.49 0.48
Table 3.23b. Minute Ventilation Rates for OEHHA Age Groups in L/min (Males and
Females Combined)
0<2
years
2<9
years
2<16
years
16<30
years
16-70
years
Sedentary & Passive Activities (METS < 1.5)
Mean 3.88 4.67 4.94 4.85 5.27
95th Percentile 5.60 6.22 6.66 6.73 6.96
Light Intensity Activities (1.5 < METS < 3.0)
Mean 9.61 11.34 11.79 11.92 12.56
95th Percentile 13.57 14.80 15.67 16.15 16.24
Moderate Intensity Activities (3.0 < METS < 6.0)
Mean 17.70 21.25 22.58 26.08 26.95
95th Percentile 25.74 28.07 30.25 37.67 37.65
From these tables, the 8-hour breathing rates were calculated by OEHHA based on age
groupings used in the Hot Spots program and are presented in Section 3.7 2 below.
NOTE: Average (4-hour sedentary
and 4-hour light intensity) of 5.27
and 12.56 for hotel worker = 8.91
L/min = 4.3 m3 (for 8 hours) or
12.9 m3/day
APPENDIX “D”
SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM FORMALDEHYDE
EMISSION MEASUREMENTS AND EMPIRICAL
MODELS REPORTED IN LITERATURE
APPENDIX “E”
KEY REQUIREMENTS OF CARB AND US EPA
REGULATIONS TO REDUCE FORMALDEHYDE
EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSITE WOOD
PRODUCTS
As of March 22, 2018
Comparison of Key Requirements of CARB and U.S. EPA Regulations
to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products
Note: For products sold in California, if there is a difference between the CARB and U.S. EPA requirements,
the more stringent requirement applies, regardless of whether it is a CARB or U.S. EPA requirement.
This table will be updated if there are future changes to the regulatory requirements.
Legal Disclaimer: CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products
(sections 93120-93120.12, title 17, California Code of Regulations) addresses formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. U.S. EPA
has enacted a similar regulation pursuant to the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2697. At the request of composite wood
industry stakeholders, CARB staff prepared the following table to compare key aspects of the two regulations. Unlike the regulations, this table
does not have the force of law. It is not intended to and cannot establish new requirements beyond those that are already in the regulations, and it
does not supplant, replace, or amend any of the legal requirements of the regulations. Conversely, any omission or truncation of regulatory
requirements found within this table does not relieve stakeholders of their legal obligation to fully comply with all requirements of the regulations.
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
Effective date Introduced in two phases between 2009 and 2013,
with initial emission standards (Phase 1) followed
by more stringent emission standards (Phase 2);
as of January 2014, only Phase 2 compliant
products are legal for sale in California.
TSCA Title VI regulation became effective on
May 22, 2017; compliance date (manufacture-by
date) for emission standards is June 1, 2018.
• Until March 22, 2019, CARB Phase 2
composite wood products (i.e., panels) and
finished goods (e.g., flooring, cabinets,
furniture) that contain CARB Phase 2
composite wood material produced by a panel
producer certified by a CARB-approved
third-party certifier (TPC) that has been
recognized by U.S. EPA will be considered as
TSCA Title VI compliant.
• Composite wood panels produced domestically
or imported into the U.S. prior to June 1, 2018,
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
2
may be sold or used to make finished goods
until supplies are depleted.
Authority for
regulation
California Health & Safety Code
(title 17, sections 93120 – 93120.12).
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act,
15 U.S.C., Sec. 2697 (TSCA Title VI).
Emission
standards
Formaldehyde emission standards for three types
of composite wood products (i.e., panels):
hardwood plywood (HWPW), particleboard (PB),
and medium density fiberboard (including
thin MDF).
• Requires use of composite wood products that
comply with emission standards in all finished
goods.
Same as CARB.
Affected
businesses
Manufacturers (i.e., panel producers); fabricators
of finished goods; and distributors, importers, and
retailers of panels and finished goods.
Same as CARB.
Recordkeeping Two years. More stringent than CARB - three years.
Product
labeling
Requires panels (or bundles of panels) and
finished goods (or boxes that contain finished
goods) to be labeled as compliant with CARB’s
Phase 2 formaldehyde emission standards.
Note: Panels and finished goods that comply with
TSCA Title VI and are labeled as TSCA Title VI
compliant will be accepted as being compliant with
CARB’s formaldehyde emission standards,
because the TSCA Title VI and CARB standards
are identical. CARB recommends labeling panels
and finished goods offered for sale in California as
Beginning June 1, 2018, panels (or bundles of
panels) and finished goods (or boxes that contain
finished goods) may be labeled as complying with
TSCA Title VI, CARB Phase 2, or both, whichever
is true for the product. Early labeling is allowed
once composite wood products are certified under
TSCA Title VI by a third-party certifier recognized
by EPA.
• Until March 22, 2019, composite wood panels
and finished goods labeled as being compliant
with CARB Phase 2 will be considered as
TSCA Title VI compliant.
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
3
being compliant with both the EPA and CARB
regulations, because retailers and consumers are
familiar with the CARB Phase 2 label.
• Panels - Information required for label on panel
(or bundles of panels):
Name of panel producer.
Product lot or batch number.
Compliance level [Phase 2, NAF (made with
no-added formaldehyde resin), or ULEF
(made with ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde
resin)].
CARB third-party certifier number (not
required for NAF/ULEF panel producers
exempted from third party certification).
• Finished goods - Information required for label
on finished good (or box that contains finished
good):
Fabricator name.
Production date (month and year).
Compliance level (Phase 2 or NAF/ULEF).
• After March 22, 2019, all manufactured
(including imported) regulated composite wood
panels and finished goods must be labeled as
TSCA Title VI compliant.
• Panels - Information required for label on panel
(or bundles of panels):
Name of panel producer.
Product lot number.
Compliance level (TSCA Title VI or
NAF/ULEF).
EPA TSCA Title VI third-party certifier
number.
NAF/ULEF panels require EPA TSCA
Title VI third-party certifier number.
• Finished goods - Information required for label
on finished good (or box that contains finished
good):
Fabricator name.
Production date (month/year).
Compliance level [TSCA Title VI; label may
also note if made with NAF/ULEF products
(if true for all composite wood products in
finished good), or made with combination of
TSCA Title VI and NAF/ULEF products].
Identification of
unlabeled
panels and
finished goods
Individual panels and finished goods are not
required to be labeled (when bundles of panels or
boxes of multiple finished goods are labeled).
More stringent than CARB - Requires importers,
distributors, fabricators, and retailers to have
method (e.g., color-coded edge marking) to identify
supplier of each compliant panel and finished
good.
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
4
De minimis
labeling
requirement
More stringent than EPA - All finished goods
must be labeled as containing Phase 2 compliant
composite wood material, regardless of amount of
composite wood material contained in the finished
good.
Labeling of a finished good is not required if the
composite wood product content does not exceed
144 square inches, based on the surface area of
the largest face (e.g., small picture frame);
however, the composite wood material must still be
compliant.
Reasonable
prudent
precautions
Fabricators, importers, distributors, and retailers
are required to take reasonable prudent
precautions (e.g., obtaining statements of
compliance from suppliers) to ensure purchase
and sale of compliant products.
Same as CARB.
Fabricators of
wood-
veneered
laminated
products (e.g.,
table tops,
cabinet doors)
Requires use of CARB Phase 2 compliant platform
(core) material.
Requires use of TSCA Title VI compliant platform
(core) material.
More stringent than CARB - Beginning
March 22, 2024, these fabricators must comply
with requirements for HWPW panel producers;
requires routine emissions testing and third-party
certification as required for HWPW panel
producers; exempt from testing and certification
requirement based on use of NAF or phenol
formaldehyde (PF) resin (verified by
recordkeeping). Final EPA rule allows businesses
that produce veneered laminated products to
petition EPA to add exemptions from the definition
of “HWPW .” (Petition process only applies to
laminated products consisting of wood or woody
grass veneers, and does not include synthetic
laminates.)
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
5
Third-party
certification
Required for all panel producers.
• Third-party certifiers (TPCs) must be approved
by CARB (CARB has approved over 40 TPCs);
re-approval required every two years.
• TPCs must participate in inter-laboratory
comparisons and submit annual reports to
CARB.
• Third-party certification limited to panel
producers and does not include fabricators of
finished goods.
TPCs may use primary or secondary test methods
to certify panel producers, to establish quality
control limits and correlations with quality control
test methods operated by panel producers, and for
quarterly emissions tests at panel producers.
Requires CARB-approved TPCs to apply to EPA
for recognition before they can certify any products
under TSCA Title VI; once recognized, TPCs may
continue certifying panel producers until
March 22, 2019.
• After March 22, 2019, TPCs must meet EPA’s
specified qualifications and be accredited by
EPA-approved product and laboratory
accreditation bodies (ABs).
• TPCs must participate in inter-laboratory
comparisons organized by CARB or EPA.
• TPCs must submit annual reports to EPA
through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)
system. (TPCs can allow CARB access to
reports, to eliminate need to send reports to
both agencies).
• New TPCs (not CARB-approved) must be
accredited by EPA-approved product AB to
ISO/IEC 17065 and by EPA-approved
laboratory AB to ISO/IEC 17025 before being
recognized by EPA, in addition to meeting all
other TSCA Title VI requirements.
Same as CARB.
Exemption
from third-
party
certification
Panel producers must work with TPC to conduct
testing and apply to CARB for approval to be
granted exemption from TPC-oversight for two
years.
Status quo for panel producers already approved
by CARB.
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
6
based on use
of no-added
formaldehyde
(NAF) or ultra-
low-emitting
formaldehyde
(ULEF) resins
• Panel producers must apply for re-approval
every two years.
• NAF - More stringent than EPA - NAF
application for exemption from TPC oversight
requires three months of quality control (QC)
data and one TPC test (primary or secondary
test method); 90 percent of QC data and the
TPC test must be no higher than 0.04 ppm; all
data must be no higher than 0.05 ppm for
HWPW and no higher than 0.06 for PB, MDF,
and thin MDF.
• ULEF - same requirements as NAF, but
requires six months of QC data and two TPC
tests.
• Panel producers seeking new exemption must
apply to CARB or their EPA TSCA Title VI TPC
for approval to be granted exemption from
TPC-oversight for two years.
• Must apply for re-approval every two years.
• NAF/ULEF panels must be labeled as specified
in TSCA Title VI, including panel producer’s
TSCA Title VI TPC number.
• EPA requests that CARB-approved Executive
Orders for NAF/ULEF exemptions and
approvals for reduced testing be provided to
EPA by the TSCA Title VI TPC through the
EPA CDX system.
• Applications to EPA for NAF/ULEF exemption
or reduced testing must be submitted to the
EPA CDX system by an EPA-recognized TSCA
Title VI TPC.
• NAF - Application for exemption from TPC
oversight requires three months of QC data and
one TPC test; 90 percent of QC data (does not
include TPC test) must be no higher than
0.04 ppm; all data must be no higher than
0.05 ppm for HWPW and no higher than
0.06 ppm for PB, MDF, and thin MDF.
• ULEF - same requirements as NAF, but
requires six months of QC data and two TPC
tests.
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
7
Domestic
agents
Not required. More stringent than CARB - All accreditation
bodies and TPCs located outside of the U.S. must
have an agent for service within the U.S. to receive
legal documents and correspondence from EPA.
Quality control
(QC) testing by
panel
producers
CARB ATCM specified two methods.
• CARB has approved five alternative QC test
methods (listed on CARB’s composite wood
products webpage under the heading of “Test
Methods”).
Same as CARB.
Development
of correlation
values
TPC’s primary or secondary test method results
and a panel producer’s quality control test results
must be shown to correlate based on a minimum
of five data pairs.
• A minimum acceptable correlation is not
specified.
• Correlation is used in establishing a quality
control limit for each product type and
production line.
Correlation based on a minimum of five data pairs;
must also calculate linear regression.
• More stringent than CARB - Specifies
minimum acceptable correlation coefficient.
• More stringent than CARB - Requires
successful annual correlation for three years;
afterwards, required every two years.
Equivalence
for secondary
test method
Allows TPCs to use small chambers for
certification tests of panel producers, after small
chamber method has been established as
secondary test method, providing equivalent test
results as primary test method (large chamber)
through a series of tests.
More stringent than EPA – Equivalence between
secondary test method and primary test method
must be established by annual comparison.
Similar requirements.
After three successful annual equivalence
demonstrations, equivalence testing only required
every two years.
Element/
Requirement
CARB ATCM U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI
8
More stringent than EPA - Equivalence requires
five comparison tests in each of two emission
ranges.
CARB ATCM requires annual equivalence testing
for each laboratory’s secondary test method, but
does not specifically require equivalence testing
for each identical small chamber.
Requires at least five comparison tests of products
representing the range of emissions of products a
TPC intends to certify.
More stringent than CARB - Equivalence testing
required for each small chamber operated by TPC.
Composite
wood products
used in
manufactured
housing
(mobile
homes)
Authority of U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) over manufactured homes
preempted CARB from regulating emissions of
hardwood plywood and particleboard.
• HUD has less stringent emission standards for
hardwood plywood and particleboard.
• MDF in manufactured homes is not regulated
by HUD and must comply with CARB ATCM.
Federal Formaldehyde Act of 2010 requires HUD
to adopt EPA’s formaldehyde emission standards
for all three regulated products in manufactured
homes within 180 days of the release of EPA’s
final regulation.
Import
certification
Not required. More stringent than CARB - Beginning
March 22, 2019, import certification through the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Automated
Commercial Environment will be required for all
non-domestic composite wood products being
imported into the U.S.
APPENDIX “F”
CAL/OSHA PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT
FOR FORMALDEHYDE AT WORK PLACE
6/28/2020 California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5217. Formaldehyde.
https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5217.html 1/14
This information is provided free of charge by the Department of Industrial Relations from its web site at
www.dir.ca.gov. These regulations are for the convenience of the user and no representation or warranty is made that
the information is current or accurate. See full disclaimer at https://www.dir.ca.gov/od_pub/disclaimer.html.
Subchapter 7. General Industry Safety Orders
Group 16. Control of Hazardous Substances
Article 110. Regulated Carcinogens
Return to index
New query
§5217. Formaldehyde.
(a) Scope and application. This standard applies to all occupational exposures to formaldehyde, i.e. from
formaldehyde gas, its solutions, and materials that release formaldehyde.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this standard, the following definitions shall apply:
Action level. Action level means a concentration of 0.5 part formaldehyde per million parts of air (0.5 ppm)
calculated as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration.
Authorized Person. Authorized person means any person required by work duties to be present in regulated areas, or
authorized to do so by the employer, by this section, or by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1973.
Chief. The Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or designee.
Director. Director means the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, or designee.
Emergency. An emergency is any occurrence, such as but not limited to equipment failure, rupture of containers, or
failure of control equipment that results in an uncontrolled release of a significant amount of formaldehyde.
Employee exposure. Employee exposure means the exposure to airborne formaldehyde which would occur without
corrections for protection provided by any respirator that is in use.
Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde means the chemical substance, HCHO, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry No. 50-
00-0.
(c) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)
(1) Time Weighted Average (TWA): The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to a concentration
of airborne formaldehyde which exceeds 0.75 parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (0.75 ppm) as an 8-
hour TWA.
(2) Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL): The employer shall assure that no employee is exposed to a
concentration of airborne formaldehyde which exceeds two parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (2 ppm)
as a 15 minute STEL.
APPENDIX “G”
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 8.32.050 – SPECIAL PROVISIONS
6/21/2020 8.32.050 Special provisions.
https://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=8-8_32-8_32_050&frames=on 1/1
South San Francisco Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 8 HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 8.32 NOISE REGULATIONS
8.32.050 Special provisions.
(a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dB measured at
a distance of fifty feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefor has been obtained from
the appropriate governmental entity.
(b) Vehicle Horns. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall be
used only when the vehicle is in a situation where life, health or property are endangered.
(c) Utilities and Emergencies. Utility and street repairs, street sweepers, franchised garbage services and emergency
response warning noises are exempt from this chapter.
(d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city
permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine
a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be
authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If
the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a
distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1,
1990)
View the mobile version.
APPENDIX “H”
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 8.32.030 – MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE
SOUND LEVELS
6/21/2020 8.32.030 Maximum permissible sound levels.
https://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=8-8_32-8_32_030&frames=on 1/2
South San Francisco Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 8 HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 8.32 NOISE REGULATIONS
8.32.030 Maximum permissible sound levels.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or
allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the
noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
(1) The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table 8.32.030 for a cumulative period of more than thirty
minutes in any hour;
(2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour;
(3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
(4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
(5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time.
(b) If the measured ambient level for any area is higher than the standard set in Table 8.32.030, then the ambient shall be
the base noise level standard for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of this section. In such cases, the noise levels for purposes of
subsections (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section shall be increased in five dB increments above the ambient.
(c) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level standard shall be that
applicable to the lower noise zone plus five dB.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no person shall wilfully make or continue, or cause to be made or
continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood.
Table 8.32.030
NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS*
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or
any single-family or
duplex residential in a
specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 50
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60
R-3 and D-C zones or any
multiple-family residential
or mixed
residential/commercial in
any specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 55
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60
C-1, P-C, Gateway and
Oyster Point Marina
specific plan districts or
any commercial use in any
specific plan district
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 60
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 65
6/21/2020 8.32.030 Maximum permissible sound levels.
https://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=8-8_32-8_32_030&frames=on 2/2
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
*Source: Adapted from “The Model Community Noise Control Ordinance,” Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health.
(Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990)
View the mobile version.
15 of 15
APPENDIX B
Indoor Air Quality: 840 El Camino Real Hotel Project – South San
Francisco, CA
Indoor Environmental Engineering
April 28, 2020
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
2 of 19
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route
of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate
ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL
concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL
concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3,
and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the 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
7 of 19
product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the
maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification
of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate
of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission
rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined
from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be
used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed
(i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than
desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete
chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test
report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-
specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed
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
𝐶!"= !!"!#$
!!"
(Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)
The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department
of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ
Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde
concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or
Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde
exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per
million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the
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
10 of 19
open their windows for 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
12 of 19
of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood
materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct
using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off
gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous
mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the
greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the
system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is
entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor
airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced
outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a
manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the
mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the
system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5
removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor
PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement
by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air
ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated
frequency of replacement.
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
17 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical
ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2
rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in
a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with
continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood
products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or
Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 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,
18 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous
occupancy.
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.
EXHIBIT 2
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
October 21, 2020
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the 840 El Camino Real Project
Dear Ms. Davis,
We have reviewed the June 2020 Preliminary Response Report (“PRR”) for the 840 El Camino Real Hotel
Project (“Project”) located in the City of South San Francisco (“City”). After our review of the PRR, we
find that the PRR is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s air quality, health risk,
and greenhouse gas impacts. As we asserted in our May 11th comment letter, a Project-specific EIR
should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts.
Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
In our May 11th comment letter, we identified several issues with the IS/MND’s air model (California
Emissions Estimator Model, “CalEEMod”)1 that artificially reduced the Project’s construction and
operational emissions. After review of the PRR, we found that the PRR fails to address all of our
concerns and maintain that the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to accurately estimate the
Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. As such, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate and
maintain our May 11th comment that an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s
local and regional air quality impacts. Until a proper air quality analysis is conducted, the Project should
not be approved.
1 http://caleemod.com/
2
Unsubstantiated Utility Company & Associated Intensity Factors
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND incorrectly modeled the Project’s anticipated
utility company as “User Defined,” with a manually-inputted CO2 intensity factor of 105.93, CH4 intensity
factor of 0, and N20 intensity factor of 0. Review of the PRR demonstrates that the Project again fails to
justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate
and maintain that the IS/MND’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) significance determination is unsupported.
Regarding the Project’s unsubstantiated intensity factors, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report noted the following: Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on Page 71 of
the IS/MND, states that “In 2018, PCE’s ECOplus option (the option with the lowest percentage
of renewables) had a portfolio of 51 percent eligible renewable energy sources with an energy
intensity factor of 129.77 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per megawatt-hour
(MWh; PCE 2018; Brown 2019). Per Senate Bill (SB) 100, the statewide Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) Program requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible
renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030. To account for continuing effects of the RPS,
PCE’s energy intensity factor was reduced based on the percentage of renewables mandated by
SB 100 for year 2030. Therefore, by 2030, PCE’s ECOplus option will have an energy intensity
factor of approximately 105.93 pounds per MWh.” As cited on Page 71 of the IS/MND, the
current energy intensity factor of 129.77 pounds of CO2e per MWh was obtained from personal
email communication with Leslie Brown, Director of Customer Care at PCE, and information on
the utility’s current renewable energy portfolio was obtained from California Energy
Commission data available on PCE’s website. Both sources are included as Attachment 2 in the
Rincon report. In addition, the Rincon report noted that Natural gas emission factors are the
same for every utility provider because the quantity of emissions is associated with the fuel type
(natural gas), which is the same regardless of the utility provider. The project’s natural gas
emissions are estimated to be approximately 270 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year, as shown
in Section 5.2 Energy by Land Use – Natural Gas of the CalEEMod Annual results for year 2030
included in Appendix AQ of the Draft IS-MND” (Exhibit B-4, pp. 5).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the PRR fails to update or correct this error in IS/MND’s CalEEMod
model. This is incorrect for four (4) reasons.
First, the Project incorrectly utilizes the reduced intensity factor “for year 2030,” as demonstrated in the
excerpt above. However, this is incorrect. As stated in the IS/MND, “Project construction is estimated to
occur over an 18-month period starting in October 2020” (IS/MND, p. 7). As such, using an intensity
factor for the year 2030 is incorrect, and the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model should not be relied upon to
determine Project significance.
Second, simply because the State has a reduction goal for the year 2030, this does not guarantee that
the reduction goal will actually be achieved locally on the Project site. Without sufficient evidence to
support these reduced values, we are unable to verify the CO2, CH4, and N20 intensity factors inputted
3
into the model, and the IS/MND’s CalEElMod model should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Third, both the IS/MND and PRR fail to disclose the “personal email communication with Leslie Brown,
Director of Customer Care at PCE,” which purportedly provides the current energy intensity factor.
Absent the personal communication disclosing the correct intensity factor, we cannot verify the CO2
intensity factor inputted into the model.
Fourth, while the PRR discusses the CO2 intensity factor inputted into the model, the PRR fails to address
the CH4 and N20 intensity factors whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify the CH4 and N20 intensity
factors inputted into the model.
As discussed above, we maintain our May 11th comment that the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model includes
unsupported CO2, CH4, and N20 intensity factors. This presents an issue, as CalEEMod utilizes the CO2,
CH4, and N20 intensity factors to calculate the Project’s GHG emissions associated with electricity use.2
As such, we reiterate our May 11th comment that the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model may underestimate
the Project’s GHG emissions, and the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination should not be relied
upon.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Construction Schedule
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND incorrectly included several manual changes
to the Project’s anticipated construction schedule. Review of the PRR demonstrates that the Project
again fails to justify or correct these modeling errors. As discussed below, we find the IS/MND and PRR
to be inadequate and maintain that the IS/MND’s air quality significance determination is
unsubstantiated.
Regarding the artificial changes to the Project’s individual construction phase lengths, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report noted that the manual inputs into the CalEEMod model are more realistic
than the default values used in CalEEMod. For example, the default phase length in CalEEMod
for site preparation is one day. As stated in Section 3.1, Project Description, on Page 7 of the
Draft IS-MND, the proposed project would require excavation and export of approximately
13,300 cubic yards of soil material, which would occur during the site preparation phase. It is
unrealistic to expect that magnitude of soil material to be excavated and exported over the
course of one day, which is the default assumption made by CalEEMod. To accomplish that work
using haul trucks with a 16-cubic-yard capacity (the default assumption in CalEEMod) would
require a total of approximately 832 haul truck roundtrips. Assuming a 10-hour construction
work day, this would equate to approximately 83 roundtrips per hour, or one trip every 45
seconds. Loading a 16-cubic-yard haul truck in 45 seconds is not practicable given that the
typical size of an excavator bucket is approximately 1.6 cubic yards, which means approximately
10 excavator loads would need to be excavated, transported, and dumped in the haul truck
2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: CalEEMod.com, p. 17.
4
within this time frame (CAT 2020). The applicant-provided estimate of approximately four weeks
(22 days) for site preparation results in a more realistic haul trip scenario of approximately four
haul truck trips per hour, or one trip every 15 minutes” (Exhibit B-4, pp. 5-6).
However, the PRR’s justification for the changes to the Project’s anticipated construction phase lengths
is insufficient. As you can see in the excerpt above, the PRR discusses only the change to the site
preparation phase. This is incorrect, as review of the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that
the model included increases to the architectural coating, building construction, demolition, grading,
and paving phases, in addition to the site preparation phase. Specifically, the architectural coating phase
was increased by approximately 780%, from the default value of 5 to 44 days; the building construction
phase was increased by approximately 249%, from the default value of 100 to 349 days; the demolition
phase was increased by approximately 120%, from the default value of 10 to 22 days; the grading phase
was increased by approximately 450%, from the default value of 2 to 11 days; and the paving phase was
increased by approximately 140%, from the default value of 5 to 12 days. By only addressing the
increase to the site preparation phase, the PRR fails to substantiate the increases to the architectural
coating, building construction, demolition, grading, and paving phases. As a result, we maintain our May
11th comment that the increases to the individual construction phase lengths are unsubstantiated.
These unsubstantiated changes improperly spread out construction emissions over a longer period of
time for some construction phases and not others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each
construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).3
As such, by disproportionately altering individual construction phase lengths without proper
justification, the models’ calculations are altered and underestimate emissions. Thus, by including
unsubstantiated changes to the Project’s anticipated individual construction phase lengths, the model
may underestimate the Project’s maximum daily construction-related emissions. As a result, we
reiterate our May 11th comment that the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model may underestimate the Project’s
3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 31.
5
construction-related emissions, and the IS/MND’s air quality significance determination should not be
relied upon.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Horsepower, Load Factor, and
Unit Amount
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model incorrectly included
several manual changes to the Project’s anticipated off-road construction equipment horsepower, load
factor, and unit amount values. Review of the PRR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or
correct these modeling errors. As discussed below, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate and
maintain that the IS/MND’s air quality significance determination is unsubstantiated.
Regarding the artificial reductions to the off-road construction equipment values, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report noted that the horsepower and load factor were changed for one piece of
equipment, to address one of CalEEMod’s limitations. CalEEMod only allows the user to input a
soil export quantity if a grader is included in the construction equipment list for that phase. The
anticipated construction equipment list, however, does not include a grader. Therefore, to
accommodate the model limitation while also accurately reflecting the anticipated construction
equipment list, a grader was entered for Site Preparation phase and the default horsepower and
load factor were adjusted to match those of an excavator (158 horsepower with 0.38 load factor
as shown in Table 3.3 on page D-10 of Appendix D of the CalEEMod User Guide), which is
anticipated to be used during this phase (CAPCOA 2017, Appendix D)” (Exhibit B-4, pp. 6).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the PRR fails to update or correct this error in the Project’s
CalEEMod model. However, this is incorrect for two (2) reasons.
First, the PRR’s claim that only “the horsepower and load factor were changed for one piece of
equipment” to add a single grader is incorrect. Specifically, review of the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output
demonstrates that the unit amounts for four (4) types of equipment were reduced, in addition to the
revised horse power and load factor values (see excerpt below) (Appendix AQ, pp. 150, 180).
As you can see in the excerpt above, several other changes were made to the Project’s off-road
construction equipment values, in addition to the revised horsepower and load factor values for one (1)
piece of equipment. As such, we find the PRR to be insufficient in addressing our May 11th comment
regarding the unsubstantiated changes to the Project’s off-road construction equipment values.
6
Second, simply because the horsepower and load factor values were reduced for one (1) piece of off-
road construction equipment, this does not justify the revised off-road equipment values. Without
substantial evidence to support these changes, we are unable to verify that the revised values are
correct. As such, we maintain our May 11th comment that the IS/MND’s model may underestimate the
Project’s construction-related emissions, and the IS/MND’s less than significant air quality impact
conclusion should not be relied upon.
Unsubstantiated Reduction to Indoor Water Use Rate
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model incorrectly included a
manual reduction to the Project’s anticipated indoor water use rate. Review of the PRR demonstrates
that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the
IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate and maintain that the IS/MND’s air quality significance determination
is unsubstantiated.
Regarding the manual reduction to the anticipated indoor water use rate, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report notes that the comments by LIUNA are correct, that the model erroneously
included a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and implementation of water-efficient
fixtures, which results in double counting of water use reductions. The Rincon report provided
an update to Table 9 of the IS/MND, which shows that annual GHG emissions (MT of CO2e) will
increase from 577.3 to 581.5. This update is still well below the 2030 threshold of 660 MT of
CO2e” (Exhibit B-4, pp. 7).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the PRR concedes that “the model erroneously included a 20
percent reduction in indoor water use” and claims that the Rincon report includes updated modeling,
omitting this unsubstantiated reduction. However, review of the Rincon report demonstrates that the
unsubstantiated reduction to the Project’s indoor water use rate was still included in the updated
modeling (see excerpt below) (Exhibit B-2, Attachment 3, pp. 281, 312, 343, 379).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the updated modeling still incorrectly includes a manual reduction
to the Project’s anticipated indoor water use rate. Thus, the PRR is misleading and fails to justify or
correct the unsubstantiated reduction to the Project’s anticipated indoor water use rate. As such, we
maintain our May 11th comment that the IS/MND’s model may underestimate the Project’s operational
emissions, and the IS/MND’s less than significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied
upon.
Unsubstantiated Application of Operational Mitigation Measures
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model incorrectly included
several mobile-, energy-, and water-related operational mitigation measures. Specifically, the IS/MND’s
model incorrectly included the following mitigation measures: “Improve Destination Accessibility,”
7
“Increase Transit Accessibility,” “Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated,” “Install Energy
Efficient Appliances,” “Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet,” “Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet,” “Install
Low Flow Toilet,” “Install Low Flow Shower,” and “Use Water Efficient Irrigation System.” Review of the
PRR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or omit these unsubstantiated operational
mitigation measures. As discussed below, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate and maintain
that the IS/MND’s air quality significance determination should not be relied upon.
Regarding the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report noted that CalEEMod refers to certain inputs as mitigation measures, for the
current project, however, these are project design features rather than mitigation measures in
the sense used by CEQA. The Rincon report notes that these features are included on the project
plans that will be subject to conditional approval by the City of South San Francisco. The Rincon
report provides additional information in support of the use of mobile, energy, and water
mitigation measures” (emphasis added) (Exhibit B-4, pp. 7).
However, the PRR’s justification for the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation
measures is insufficient. Simply because the PRR claims these inputs are “project design features rather
than mitigation measures” does not justify their inclusion in the model. According to the Association of
Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation
measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting
from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the
project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws,
regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts” (emphasis added).4
The guidance goes on to state:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address
environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the
MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the
design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for
someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project
that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting
environmental impact” (emphasis added).5
As you can see in the excerpts above, project design features are not mitigation measures and may be
eliminated from the Project’s design. Thus, since the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures
4 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5.
5 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.
8
included in the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model are not included as mitigation measures, we cannot
guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, we
maintain our May 11th comment that the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation
measures in the model is incorrect, and the IS/MND’s CalEEMod model should not be relied upon to
determine Project significance. Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact
In our May 11th comment letter, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, which estimated that the
Project would result in construction-related VOC and NOX emissions of 290- and 252-pounds per
day(“lbs/day”), respectively. As a result, we concluded that the Project would result in a potentially
significant air quality impact. Review of the PRR demonstrates that the Project fails to sufficiently
address the potentially significant air quality impact. As discussed below, we find the IS/MND and PRR to
be inadequate and maintain our May 11th comment that the Project’s air quality significance
determination is unsubstantiated.
Regarding SWAPE’s updated analysis, and the resulting potentially significant air quality impact, the PRR
states:
“The Rincon report noted that, as detailed in Responses D.1-D.3, D.6, and G.2, project GHG
emissions were modeled using reasonable, project-specific assumptions and data, and
substantial evidence has been provided to justify model inputs. In Response D.4, the model
erroneously modified the default numbers of construction worker and vendor trips, and as
detailed in Response D.5, the model erroneously included a 20 percent reduction in indoor
water use and installation of water-efficient fixtures. These errors were corrected in the GHG
emissions modeling, and the results are included in a revised Table 9 in the Rincon report. Based
on Table 9, project emissions remain below the threshold of significance; therefore, GHG
emissions impacts remain less than significant” (Exhibit B-4, pp. 9).
However, this justification is insufficient. While the Rincon report includes an updated model, omitting
the unsubstantiated construction trip reductions and installation of water-efficient fixtures, the updated
model still includes unsubstantiated changes to the Project’s anticipated intensity factors, construction
phase lengths, off-road construction equipment values, and indoor water use rate. As such, despite the
updated model, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate and maintain our May 11th comment
that the Project’s air quality significance determination is unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, we prepared an updated model, omitting the unsubstantiated changes to the intensity
factors, changes to the off-road construction equipment values, and operational mitigation measures, as
well as including only the increase to the site preparation phase of construction. Our updated analysis
9
demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOX emissions still exceed the 54 pounds
per day (lbs/day) thresholds set by the BAAQMD (see table below).6
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 or
PRR. As a result, we maintain our May 11th comment that the IS/MND’s air quality signficiance
determination should not be relied upon, and an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and
mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate the proposed
Project’s potential health risk impacts. Review of the PRR demonstrates that the Project again fails to
justify the omission of a quantified construction and operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). As
discussed below, we maintain our May 11th that the IS/MND and PRR are inadequate and recommend
that the Project not be approved until an EIR be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential
health risk impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
Regarding the Project’s omission of a quantified construction and operational HRA, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report notes that operational toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions fall under the
screening criteria developed by CARB and BAAQMD. Further, the addition of 344 daily trips is
not significant because traffic volumes of at least 100,000 vehicle trips on urban arterials trigger
the need to assess roadway TACs emissions. Daily traffic volumes on El Camino Real (State Route
82) in the project vicinity are approximately 48,500 vehicles per day, which would be increased
to approximately 48,844 vehicles per day with project implementation (California Department
of Transportation 2020). Therefore, the project’s trip generation would not be sufficient to
trigger a substantial risk from roadway pollutants and would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to TAC concentrations along local or area roadways” (Exhibit B-4, pp.
8).
However, this is incorrect for three (3) reasons.
First, the PRR misinterprets our May 11th comment regarding health risk impacts associated with on-site
emissions. Specifically, the PRR incorrectly focuses on the impact of the Project’s contribution to “TAC
6 “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.
10
concentrations along local or area roadways” instead of emissions from the Project site itself. This is
incorrect, and as such we maintain our May 11th comment that an EIR should be prepared to adequately
evaluate the proposed Project’s potential health risk impacts to nearby, existing sensitive receptors.
Second, while the PRR states that operational TAC “emissions fall under the screening criteria developed
by CARB and BAAQMD,” the PRR fails to elaborate upon which screening criteria or provide any source
for this claim. As such, the PRR’s claim that an HRA is not necessary, because “emissions fall under the
screening criteria developed by CARB and BAAQMD” should not be relied upon (Exhibit B-4, pp. 8).
Without any additional information regarding the purported “screening criteria developed by CARB and
BAAQMD,” we cannot verify that the Project’ would result in a less than significant health risk impact,
and we maintain our May 11th comment that an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the
proposed Project’s potential health risk impacts to nearby, existing sensitive receptors.
Third, the PRR fails to mention or respond to our previous comment regarding 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. As previously stated, 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.7 Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines and as stated in our May
11th comment letter, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction be evaluated. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts
In our May 11th comment letter, we prepared a construction and operational HRA based on SWAPE’s
updated modeling, concluding that the Project would result in a construction and operational cancer risk
of 450 in one million, with age sensitivity factors, and 100 in one million, without age sensitivity factors.
As discussed below, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s
health risk significance determination is unsubstantiated.
Regarding SWAPE’s construction and operational HRA, the PRR states:
“The Rincon report noted that the SWAPE analysis incorrectly used PM 10 as a surrogate for
diesel particulate matter (DPM). As stated by CARB, “more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1
μm in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair), and thus is a subset of particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).” Thus, the risk calculation conducted by
SWAPE overstates the risk simply by using the incorrect pollutant to model the risk. The
Rincon report cited other considerations that the use of CalEEMod to estimate emissions
associated with diesel exhaust risk is inappropriate as it relies on outdated emission factors
necessary for risk analysis, which should always be based on the most current and accurate
7 “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
11
information available. The risk findings presented by SWAPE are therefore based on
inaccurate, out-of-date information, thus the assertion that an Environmental Impact
Report and refined HRA are necessary is incorrect because further analysis would not
change the conclusions of the IS/MND” (Exhibit B-4, pp. 8-9).
However, this justification is insufficient. The PRR’s claim that SWAPE’s use of exhaust PM10 estimates is
incorrect should not be relied upon. The use of exhaust PM10 is standard practice and widely used
among land use projects within the BAAQMD.8 As such, SWAPE’s use of exhaust PM10 to calculate the
Project’s construction and operational cancer risk was justified. Furthermore, as stated in our May 11th
comment letter, 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. Thus, if our screening-level
HRA indicates a potentially significant health risk impact, then further analysis should be conducted to
identify the health risk associated with the Project and mitigation should be implemented, if necessary.
Here, however, the PRR elects to ignore our screening-level HRA and fails to conduct a more specific
analysis including the Project construction and operation. As such, we find the IS/MND and PRR to be
inadequate in addressing our screening-level HRA and maintain our May 11th comment that the Project’s
health risk significance determination is unsubstantiated.
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
As discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed Project would
generate net annual construction and operational GHG emissions of 577 metric dons of carbon dioxide
equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would be below the BAAQMD bright-line threshold of 660
MT CO2e/year. However, review of the PRR demonstrates that the proposed Project again fails to
adequately evaluate the Project’s anticipated GHG impacts. As discussed below, we maintain that the
IS/MND and PRR’s GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less than significant impact conclusion, are
incorrect for two (2) reasons.
First, as discussed in our May 11th comment letter, the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relied upon
an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model. As reiterated above, review of the PRR demonstrates that
the PRR fails to sufficiently address our comments regarding the Project’s flawed CalEEMod model. As a
result, emissions associated with the Project are still underestimated, and the IS/MND and PRR’s
quantitative GHG analyses should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. As such, we find
the PRR to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s air model, as well as the subsequent less-than-
significant GHG impact determination, is unsubstantiated.
Second, as discussed above, we prepared an updated model, omitting the unsubstantiated changes to
the intensity factors, changes to the off-road construction equipment values, and operational mitigation
measures, as well as including only the increase to the site preparation phase of construction. The
CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project-specific information as disclosed in the
8 See: “UCSF COMPREHENSIVE PARNASSUS HEIGHTS PLAN Draft Environmental Import Report.” City of South San Francisco, July
2020, p. 4.2-25; “1510 S. DE ANZA BOULEVARD HOTEL AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT.” City of San Jose, June
2020, p. 12; and “FIRST & OXBOW HOTEL AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT.” City of Napa, March 2019, p .8.
12
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 0.00
Energy 621.50
Mobile 343.27
Waste 26.16
Water 7.36
Total 998.29
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). Thus, the Project may
result in a significant GHG impact not previously assessed or identified in the IS/MND or PRR. As a result,
we maintain our May 11th comment that a Project-specific EIR should be prepared and recirculated that
adequately assesses and mitigates the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the
proposed Project may have on regional and local air quality.
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,
13
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 22.00
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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 0.0393 0.5788 0.3010 1.2300e-
003
0.0350 0.0160 0.0510 8.6100e-
003
0.0148 0.0234 0.0000 115.5984 115.5984 0.0135 0.0000 115.9357
2021 0.7644 0.3932 0.3483 8.5000e-
004
0.0255 0.0167 0.0421 6.9100e-
003
0.0154 0.0223 0.0000 77.2547 77.2547 0.0133 0.0000 77.5865
Maximum 0.7644 0.5788 0.3483 1.2300e-
003
0.0350 0.0167 0.0510 8.6100e-
003
0.0154 0.0234 0.0000 115.5984 115.5984 0.0135 0.0000 115.9357
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 0.0393 0.5788 0.3010 1.2300e-
003
0.0350 0.0160 0.0510 8.6100e-
003
0.0148 0.0234 0.0000 115.5983 115.5983 0.0135 0.0000 115.9356
2021 0.7644 0.3932 0.3483 8.5000e-
004
0.0255 0.0167 0.0421 6.9100e-
003
0.0154 0.0223 0.0000 77.2546 77.2546 0.0133 0.0000 77.5864
Maximum 0.7644 0.5788 0.3483 1.2300e-
003
0.0350 0.0167 0.0510 8.6100e-
003
0.0154 0.0234 0.0000 115.5983 115.5983 0.0135 0.0000 115.9356
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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 0.7248 0.7248
2 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 0.3878 0.3878
3 4-1-2021 6-30-2021 0.7743 0.7743
Highest 0.7743 0.7743
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 11/13/2020 5 22
3 Grading Grading 11/14/2020 11/17/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/18/2020 4/6/2021 5 100
5 Paving Paving 4/7/2021 4/13/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/14/2021 4/20/2021 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): 11
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 5.8300e-
003
0.0000 5.8300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 6.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.5400e-
003
0.0927 0.0450 1.1000e-
004
3.6900e-
003
3.6900e-
003
3.3900e-
003
3.3900e-
003
0.0000 9.4151 9.4151 3.0500e-
003
0.0000 9.4912
Total 7.5400e-
003
0.0927 0.0450 1.1000e-
004
5.8300e-
003
3.6900e-
003
9.5200e-
003
6.3000e-
004
3.3900e-
003
4.0200e-
003
0.0000 9.4151 9.4151 3.0500e-
003
0.0000 9.4912
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 1.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3500e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3808 0.3808 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3810
Total 1.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3500e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3808 0.3808 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3810
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 5.8300e-
003
0.0000 5.8300e-
003
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 6.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.5400e-
003
0.0927 0.0450 1.1000e-
004
3.6900e-
003
3.6900e-
003
3.3900e-
003
3.3900e-
003
0.0000 9.4151 9.4151 3.0500e-
003
0.0000 9.4912
Total 7.5400e-
003
0.0927 0.0450 1.1000e-
004
5.8300e-
003
3.6900e-
003
9.5200e-
003
6.3000e-
004
3.3900e-
003
4.0200e-
003
0.0000 9.4151 9.4151 3.0500e-
003
0.0000 9.4912
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 1.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3500e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3808 0.3808 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3810
Total 1.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.3500e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3808 0.3808 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3810
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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 0.0138 0.1416 0.1182 1.8000e-
004
8.3600e-
003
8.3600e-
003
7.6900e-
003
7.6900e-
003
0.0000 16.0097 16.0097 5.1800e-
003
0.0000 16.1391
Total 0.0138 0.1416 0.1182 1.8000e-
004
8.3600e-
003
8.3600e-
003
7.6900e-
003
7.6900e-
003
0.0000 16.0097 16.0097 5.1800e-
003
0.0000 16.1391
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 1.6700e-
003
0.0498 0.0125 1.2000e-
004
2.8300e-
003
2.4000e-
004
3.0800e-
003
8.2000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
0.0000 11.3106 11.3106 5.8000e-
004
0.0000 11.3252
Worker 3.7100e-
003
2.6600e-
003
0.0275 9.0000e-
005
8.8500e-
003
6.0000e-
005
8.9100e-
003
2.3500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
0.0000 7.7535 7.7535 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 7.7582
Total 5.3800e-
003
0.0525 0.0400 2.1000e-
004
0.0117 3.0000e-
004
0.0120 3.1700e-
003
2.8000e-
004
3.4600e-
003
0.0000 19.0641 19.0641 7.7000e-
004
0.0000 19.0834
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0138 0.1416 0.1182 1.8000e-
004
8.3600e-
003
8.3600e-
003
7.6900e-
003
7.6900e-
003
0.0000 16.0097 16.0097 5.1800e-
003
0.0000 16.1391
Total 0.0138 0.1416 0.1182 1.8000e-
004
8.3600e-
003
8.3600e-
003
7.6900e-
003
7.6900e-
003
0.0000 16.0097 16.0097 5.1800e-
003
0.0000 16.1391
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 1.6700e-
003
0.0498 0.0125 1.2000e-
004
2.8300e-
003
2.4000e-
004
3.0800e-
003
8.2000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
0.0000 11.3106 11.3106 5.8000e-
004
0.0000 11.3252
Worker 3.7100e-
003
2.6600e-
003
0.0275 9.0000e-
005
8.8500e-
003
6.0000e-
005
8.9100e-
003
2.3500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
0.0000 7.7535 7.7535 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 7.7582
Total 5.3800e-
003
0.0525 0.0400 2.1000e-
004
0.0117 3.0000e-
004
0.0120 3.1700e-
003
2.8000e-
004
3.4600e-
003
0.0000 19.0641 19.0641 7.7000e-
004
0.0000 19.0834
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 0.0264 0.2715 0.2470 3.9000e-
004
0.0152 0.0152 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 34.0279 34.0279 0.0110 0.0000 34.3030
Total 0.0264 0.2715 0.2470 3.9000e-
004
0.0152 0.0152 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 34.0279 34.0279 0.0110 0.0000 34.3030
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 2.9100e-
003
0.0959 0.0239 2.5000e-
004
6.0200e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.2300e-
003
1.7400e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9400e-
003
0.0000 23.8078 23.8078 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 23.8370
Worker 7.3000e-
003
5.0400e-
003
0.0534 1.8000e-
004
0.0188 1.2000e-
004
0.0189 5.0000e-
003
1.1000e-
004
5.1200e-
003
0.0000 15.8982 15.8982 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 15.9071
Total 0.0102 0.1009 0.0773 4.3000e-
004
0.0248 3.3000e-
004
0.0252 6.7400e-
003
3.1000e-
004
7.0600e-
003
0.0000 39.7059 39.7059 1.5300e-
003
0.0000 39.7441
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 0.0264 0.2715 0.2470 3.9000e-
004
0.0152 0.0152 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 34.0279 34.0279 0.0110 0.0000 34.3030
Total 0.0264 0.2715 0.2470 3.9000e-
004
0.0152 0.0152 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 34.0279 34.0279 0.0110 0.0000 34.3030
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:42 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 2.9100e-
003
0.0959 0.0239 2.5000e-
004
6.0200e-
003
2.1000e-
004
6.2300e-
003
1.7400e-
003
2.0000e-
004
1.9400e-
003
0.0000 23.8078 23.8078 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 23.8370
Worker 7.3000e-
003
5.0400e-
003
0.0534 1.8000e-
004
0.0188 1.2000e-
004
0.0189 5.0000e-
003
1.1000e-
004
5.1200e-
003
0.0000 15.8982 15.8982 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 15.9071
Total 0.0102 0.1009 0.0773 4.3000e-
004
0.0248 3.3000e-
004
0.0252 6.7400e-
003
3.1000e-
004
7.0600e-
003
0.0000 39.7059 39.7059 1.5300e-
003
0.0000 39.7441
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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:42 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 22.00
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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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 11/13/2020 5 22
3 Grading Grading 11/14/2020 11/17/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/18/2020 4/6/2021 5 100
5 Paving Paving 4/7/2021 4/13/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/14/2021 4/20/2021 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): 11
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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 1,111.896
2
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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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 1,111.896
2
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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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 1,112.135
8
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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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 1,112.135
8
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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:43 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 22.00
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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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 11/13/2020 5 22
3 Grading Grading 11/14/2020 11/17/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/18/2020 4/6/2021 5 100
5 Paving Paving 4/7/2021 4/13/2021 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/14/2021 4/20/2021 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): 11
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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 1,111.896
2
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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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 1,111.896
2
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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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 1,112.135
8
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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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 1,112.135
8
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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 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: 10/20/2020 2:40 PMPage 27 of 27
840 El Camino Real Hotel - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter