HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75D75D
City Council Meeting Correspondence
6/4/2019
PUBLIC HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO.2018-72, AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO.
2018-04, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO, 2018-02, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.2018-01
FOR THE MAINPLACE TRANSFORMATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED
AT 2800 NORTH MAIN STREET - FILED BY MAINPLACE SHOPPINGTOWN, LLC
Date of Name Representative of
Correspondence
1 61412019 Kristi Love on behalf of Net Development Co.
Kevin Coleman
1 614/2019
Ace Malisos
6/4/2019
Sue Thornton
1 613/2019
Ursela Martinez
Kimley Horn
Santa Ana Resident
UUNA
In Favor In Opposition
of RA*. of RA.*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2 6/4/2019 Rebecca L. Davis Lozeau/Drury LLP on behalf Yes
of Supporters Alliance for
4
TOTAL: 5
Comment
*RA- Recommended Action
Thursday, June 06, 2019 Page 1 of 1.
6/4/19 City Council Meeting
IN SUPPORT
Orozco, Norma
From: Cruz, Yesenia
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 2:24 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: City Council meeting tonight -Letter from Kevin Coleman
Attachments: Letter -City of Santa Ana, City Council, 6-4-19.pdf
Please see attached correspondence for tonight's CM. Thank you.
From: Kristi Love [
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 2:19 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Kevin Coleman <
Subject: City Council meeting tonight -Letter from Kevin Coleman
Please see the attached letter and submit to all council members for their review for this evenings meeting.
Thank you.
Kristi Love Whitacre
Executive Assistant to Kevin A. Coleman
Net Development Co.
June 4, 2019
City Council
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Subject:
Environmental Review No. 2018-72, Amendment Application No. 2018-04,
Development Agreement No. 2018-02, and Tentative Parcel Map NO. 2018-01 for the
Mainplace Transformation and Expansion Project Specific Plan Located at 2800 N. Main
St. - Filed by Mainplace Shoppingtgwn, LLC.
Dear Councilmembers,
Please acknowledge this letter as support of the above subject scheduled to be heard at
the City Council meeting tonight. I am in full support of the project and understand the
positive impact it will have not only to the city of Santa Ana but it will earmark the
Mainplace Mall as a most worthy destination and bring visitors and jobs to the city.
While most malls are losing business due to online ordering, gas prices, etc., Jonathan
Maher and his team have hit a homenm on this improvement! I believe it will designate
a crucial path for other business faced with our changing times to think outside of the box
and bring business to the city.
I ask that you unanimously vote to approve the requested Amendment Application and
Tentative Parcel Map.
Please feel free to contact me if
0
KAC:klw
to discuss this matter further.
6/4/19 City Council Meeting
COMMENT
Orozco, Norma
From: Sue Thornton <
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 11:26 AM
To: eComment
Subject: City Council meeting - Main Place Proposal
As a resident of the Fisher Park neighborhood that is directly across the freeway from Main Place, I have a front
row seat to every light show that Main Place puts on. The most recent being the Circus Tent that I am sure was
positive from that side of the freeway.
Whereas I do believe that the current layout of the Mall and related properties is truly inefficient and not a good
use of the available space and should be allowed to progress with a complete re -do, I respectfully request that
you put in a clause or a way for us to have a voice when it comes to whatever new light show they have planned
on the freeway side of their property.
The freeway eliminates all possible buffers from the light noise they put out. I can see three of their billboards
from my living room sofa.
PLEASE put something in whatever you approve to allow us a voice.
Sue Thornton
C1-)
Kimley)>)Horn
To: Ali Pezeshkpour, City of Santa Ana
From: Ace Malisos
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: June 4, 2019
Subject: MainPlace— Response to Comments by Francis J. Offermann, PE, CIH Regarding
Indoor Air Quality
Kimley-Horn has reviewed the May 31, 2019 memorandum prepared by Francis J. Offermann, PE, CIH
on indoor air quality associated with the MainPlace Project ("Project"), located in Santa Ana,
California. For the reasons set forth below, there is no merit to the claim that the Project would create
a significant health risk by exposing future residents of the Project to formaldehyde.
Health Risk from Indoor Air Concentrations of Formaldehyde
Potential formaldehyde emissions from building materials are the subject of extensive regulation at
both the federal and state level. On June 1, 2018, new provisions of the US Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Title VI were enacted, requiring composite wood products sold, supplied, offered for sale,
manufactured, or imported into the US to meet new emissions standards for formaldehyde in order
to reduce exposures to formaldehyde and avoid adverse health effects. These new emission limits
include:
• Hardwood plywood: 0.05 parts per million
• Particleboard: 0.09 ppm
• Thin medium -density fiberboard: 0.13 ppm
The California Air Resources Board (GARB) identifies that these standards will lead to a reduction in
statewide formaldehyde emissions of 500 tons per year and a reduced cancer risk of 40% when
compared to the emissions levels permitted before these limits were enacted in 2018. This project,
like all projects in the City, will be implemented pursuant to these formaldehyde requirements, as all
produced manufactured or imported into the US must meet these levels.
Further, according to the US National Library of Medicine's Hazardous Substances Database,
formaldehyde is readily biodegradable and complete degradation of formaldehyde can be
accomplished in less than 30 days, and formaldehyde in the air can be degraded in less than 4 days.
Thus, most, if not all, formaldehyde residue in furniture, fixtures, and floors can be expected to be off
a
Kimlep Morn
Page 2
gassed and released shortly after manufacture (i.e., within 30 days), meaning that the amount of
formaldehyde residue in indoor air upon occupancy will be at zero within 30 days or sooner.
Cancer effects are produced following extensive, long-term exposures for a period of usually more
than 7 years. Wood -pressed furniture and flooring would not have enough formaldehyde to offgas
for that length of time (or any length of time generally exceeding 5 days).
Additionally, the use of formaldehyde in composite wood products is regulated by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency through the following laws and regulations:
Toxic Substances Control Act. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives EPA authority to
require reporting, recordkeeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical
substances and/or mixtures. In addition to TSCA Title VI, which applies to formaldehyde emissions
from composite wood products, the Act regulates significant new uses of formaldehyde pursuant
to Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. Such regulations are listed at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart E.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle -to -grave." This includes the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set
forth a frameworkforthe management of non -hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to
RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks
storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating
discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for
surface waters. Underthe CWA, EPA has implemented pollution control programs, such as setting
wastewater standards for industry and water quality standards for all contaminants in surface
waters. Section 311(b)(2)(A) regulates discharges of hazardous substances, including
formaldehyde. The list of designated hazardous substances, including formaldehyde, is found at
40 CFR 116.4. A table of reportable quantities of hazardous substances, including formaldehyde,
and applicability, notice, and liability provisions are found at 40 CFR 117.
Clean Air Act. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA sets limits on certain air pollutants, including
setting limits on how much can be in the air anywhere in the United States. The Clean Air Act also
gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like chemical
plants, utilities, and steel mills. Individual states or tribes may have stronger air pollution laws,
but they may not have weaker pollution limits than those set by EPA. Formaldehyde is designated
as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant and regulated pursuant to national emission standards at
Section 112.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under the CAA. Section 112(d) states
that EPA must promulgate regulations establishing emission standards (NESHAP) for each
Kimley>>>Horn
Page 3
category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of HAPs [listed pursuant to Section
112(c)]. The standards must require the maximum degree of emission reduction that the EPA
determines to be achievable by each particular source category. Different criteria for maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) apply for new and existing sources. Less stringent
standards, known as generally available control technology (GACT) standards, are allowed at the
Administrator's discretion for area sources.
Categories which formaldehyde is regulated under the NESHAP:
• Plywood and composite wood products
• Vehicle emissions
• Wet formed fiberglass mat production
• Mineral wool production
• Wool fiberglass manufacturing
• Manufacture of amino/phenolic resins
• Wood furniture manufacturing operations
• Rubber tire manufacturing
• Natural gas transmission and storage facilities
• Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
• Organic liquid distribution operations
• Taconite iron ore processing
• Emissions for polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production
• Oil and natural gas production facilities
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. Section 202(1) of the Clean Air Act
requires the EPA to set standards to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles, motor
vehicle fuels, or both. The 2007 Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources rule
allows EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including formaldehyde, from
highway vehicles and non -road equipment. Such regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 85.
Additional information can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/formaldehyde/laws-and-
regu lations-concerning-formaldehyde
CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure. Formaldehyde in composite building materials has been
regulated by CARB since 2009 (refer to Sections 93120-93120.12, Title 17, California Code of
Regulations). The regulation got progressively stricter between 2009 and 2014, CARB's regulation
requires use of the best available control technology.
As noted above, there are various regulations that address formaldehyde concentrations. The
approach and analysis in the comment is not consistent with CARB's approach for regulating building
materials, as CARB has their own regulations for reducing health risk from formaldehyde emissions
from building materials.
714 939 103D
i
Page 4
As indicated above, the amount of formaldehyde released from building materials is reduced
exponentially over time. The Offermann memo nonetheless incorrectly assumes that the same
concentration of formaldehyde will be present year after year over a 30-year period. In reality, indoor
air concentrations of formaldehyde are likely due to various sources, and the formaldehyde that
originates from the building material will decrease with time. Thus, the statement in the comment
letter that the project would be exposed to a "...cancer risk from formaldehyde of between 125 and
180 per million" and workers would be exposed to "...a cancer risk of 18.4 per million..." is based on
false assumptions. Given the federal and state regulations limiting formaldehyde emissions from
building materials, neither residents nor workers on the Project site will be exposed to dangerous
level of formaldehyde emissions.
765 The City Drive, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030
6/4/19 City Council Meeting
iaE
IN OPPOSITION
®rozco, Norma
From:
Adrian Esparza <
Sent:
Monday, June 03, 2019 3:19 PM
To:
eComment
Cc:
Adrian Esparza; Robert Ruiz
Subject:
AGENDA ITEM 75D
Attachments:
Oppostion letter to SA City.pdf
Importance: High
Sent on Behalf of Adrian A. Esparza, Business Manager
Mayor Pulido, Council Members, City Manager and City Attorney:
Attached please find the Locals' letter of opposition for Agenda Item 75D for tomorrow night's City Council
meeting.
Thank you,
LCa^Sal Ebpa rev Ma vtaw-k
Secretary to the Business Manager
pNAM46 CgUp}Y
Laborers'
International
Union of
North America I HUNAI,
�bur•��
Feel the Power
LOCAL UNION 652
Business Manager
® ao
June 3, 2019
;etary-Treasurer Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
SSE SEGURA City Manager and City Attorney
President City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
i:LUIS TIRADO Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Agenda Item 75D
IETER IGLESIAS 2800 N. Main Street
ecoeng Secretary Opposition for Proposed Development
RUBEN GARCIA Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
Sergeant -at -Arms
The Brothers and Sisters of the Local 652, an affiliate of the Southern
WGabby" ENRIQUEZ California District Council of Laborers and the Laborers International
cutive Board Member Union of North America (LiUNA!), would like to convey our
IAEL R. HERNANDEZ Opposition for the proposed development at 2800 N. Main Street (Main
cudveBoard Member Place Mall).
iCTOR MADRIGAL Local 652 opposes Item 75D for the following reason:
Auditor
Further environmental reports are needed for further mitigation
IADALUPE'FLORES that would have less of an impact on the surrounding communities
Auditor and constituents as well as the 1,800+ men and woman that Local
11E "Henry" MARTINEZ 652 represents in Orange County as well as their families.
Auditor For the above reason, we urge you to postpone Item 75D to a further date.
In advance; the Local thanks you for your consideration on this important
matter.
Sine rely,
LOCAL OFFICE
OPEIU #537
Laborers' International Union of North America
Orozco, Norma
From:
Barraza, Eric
Sent:
Tuesday, June 04, 2019 10:45 AM
To:
Rebecca Davis
Subject:
RE: Public Comment on Agenda Item 75D - MainPlace Transformation Project
Addendum
Hello Rebecca,
On behalf of the City Manager and City Council, thank you for sharing your comments with
the City. They have been forwarded to the City Council for their review and consideration.
For future reference, feel free to send public comments related to items on the agenda
directly to eComment@santa-ana.org.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly.
Best Regards,
Eric Barraza
City Manager's Office I City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701
Direct(714) 640-9788 1 ebarraza5@santa-ana.ora
From: Rebecca Davis <
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:23 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Pezeshkpour, Ali <APezeshkpour@santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 75D - MainPlace Transformation Project Addendum
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please find the attached comments of Supporters' Alliance for Environmental Responsibility regarding the
proposed CEQA Addendum for the MainPlace Transformation Project, listed as Item 75D on this evening's
City Council Agenda.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorized interception,
review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete
the message and any attachments. Thank you.
DRURYuv
Minh Thai, Executive Director
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency I M20
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
mthai@santa-ana.org
Re: Comment on EIR Addendum for MainPlace Transformation Project Specific
Plan Located at 2800 North Main Street (SCH NO. 1983021103);
Environmental Review No. 2018-72, Amendment Application No. 2018-04
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of the Supporters' Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
("SAFER'), a California non-profit organization with members living in and around the City of
Santa Ana, regarding the MainPlace Transformation Project Specific Plan located at 2800 North
Main Street in Santa Ana, California ("Project"). The proposed project includes the full buildout
of 1,400,000 square feet of commercial, 750,000 square feet of office, 400 hotel rooms, and
1,900 residential units. Staff claims that the potential environmental effects of the Project have
been fully addressed by the 1983 Fashion Square Commercial Center Subsequent Final
Environmental Impact Report ("1983 EIR"). Fundamentally, the proposed Project is an entirely
different project than what was analyzed in 1983 EIR (the "1983 Project"). The 1983 FIR
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 2
contained no residential element, yet the Project proposes 1,900 residential units that have never
been analyzed under CEQA. The 1983 EIR has no informational value to the residential element
of the Project and is irrelevant to analyzing its environmental impacts. In addition, the
circumstances surrounding the Project site have changed dramatically since 1983. For example,
traffic has increased nearly 50% in some nearby locations. The 1983 EIR fails to address any of
these changed circumstances. As a result, additonal environmental review of the Project must
occur pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
A number of highly qualified experts have reviewed the proposed hotel project and its
environmental effects. Traffic engineer Daniel Smith. Jr., P.E., and Certified Industrial
Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, and environmental consulting firm SWAPE have
identified a number of significant impacts from the proposed Project including traffic, and air
quality impacts, as well as omissions and flaws in the documents relied upon by staff. These
comments are attached as Exhibits A through C.
By opting to proceed with an Addendum instead of the required EIR or SEIR, the City of
Santa Ana ("City") has deprived the members of the public of the public review and circulation
requirement available for EIRs. SAFER urges the Commission not to adopt the Addendum or
approve the Project, and instead to direct staff to prepare a Draft EIR for the Project, and to
circulate the Draft EIR for public review and comment prior to Project approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves adoption of a specific plan to facilitate the redevelopment of the
existing MainPlace Mall into a regional, mixed -use village with additional commercial, office,
residential, and hotel projects. The Project involves 1,400,000 square feet of commercial,
750,000 square feet of office, 400 rooms of hotel, and 1,900 residential units. In contrast, the
1983 EIR analyzed a mixed -use commercial center with 1,600,000 square feet of commercial
space, 1,500,000 square feet of office space, and 1,200 hotel rooms.
The Project site currently contains the 1,130,000 MainPlace Mall regional shopping
center, three parking structures, and surface parking lots. The site is approximately 49 acres and
is located northeast of the corner of Main Street and Main Place Drive. It is surrounded by the
Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway to the west, the Garden Grove (SR-22) Freeway to the north, Main
Street and commercial and mixed -use land uses to the east, and Main Place Drive and
commercial -office land uses to the south. A midrise office building is located adjacent to the site
at 2700 North Main Street.
LEGALSTANDARD
CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an
EIR. This presumption is reflected in the fair argument standard. Under that standard, a lead
agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the
agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 3
Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of
California (1993) ("Laurel Heights II") 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29
Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602.
The City relies on CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15164 to claim that no CEQA review
is required. The court of appeal recently stated, "The addendum is the other side of the coin
from the supplement to an EIR. This section provides an interpretation with a label and an
explanation of the kind of document that does not need additional public review." "It must be
remembered that an addendum is prepared where `(2) Only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and
(3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about
the significant effects on the environment.' ([Guideline] 15164, subd. (a).)" Save Our
Heritage Org. v. City of San Diego, 28 Cal. App. 5th 656, 664-65 (2018) (emphasis added).
Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "the lead agency or a
responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or
additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact,
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 4
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
DISCUSSION
I. THE 1983 EIR HAS NO INFORMATIONAL VALUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL
ASPECT OF THE PROJECT.
As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent CEQA
review provisions "can apply only if the project has been subject to initial review; they can have
no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to
review." Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2016) 1 Ca1.5th 937, 950
("San Mateo Gardens"). As the Supreme Court explains, "[a] decision to proceed under
CEQA`s subsequent review provisions must thus necessarily rest on a determination — whether
implicit or explicit — that the original environmental document retains some informational
value." Id. at 951 (emph. added). Only if the original environmental document retains some
informational value despite the proposed changes, changes in circumstances or new substantial
information does the agency proceed to decide under CEQA's subsequent review provisions
whether such changes or substantial new information will require major revisions to the original
environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant
environmental effects. 1 Cal.5th at 952. Reviewing the 1983 EIR, the City cannot reasonably
claim that it addresses, i.e., provides some informational value regarding the potential
environmental impacts of the 1,900 residential units proposed as part of the Project.
The Project includes 1,900 units of residential housing that have never been analyzed in
any previous CEQA document. A thorough review of the 1983 EIR confirms that no
mention is made of any residential aspect of the redevelopment project. Instead, the 1983
EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Santa
Ana Fashion Square site as a mixed -used commercial center with 1,600 square feet of retail
space, 1,500,000 square feet of office space, and 1,200 hotel rooms. Since the 1983 Project
contained no residential element, none of the 1983 EIR's discussion provides any information
that would assist the City in determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
1,900 residential units. The project considered in the 1983 EIR simply has no relevance to the
environmental impact of the construction and occupancy of 1,900 residential housing units.
Since the residential element of the Project has never undergone CEQA review, it is a
new project, and the City must start from the beginning of the CEQA process under section
21151, conduct an initial study, and determine whether there is substantial evidence of a fair
argument that the project will have a significant environmental impact. Friends of College of
San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo, 1 Cal.5th at 951. The City Council should require CEQA
review for the Project, and not approve the Project until CEQA review is completed.
MamPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 5
II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT BECAUSE
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE
PROJECT MAY HAVE ONE OR MORE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS.
As the California Supreme Court held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt
project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result
in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR."
Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310,
319-320 ["CBE v. SCAQMD"], citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,
75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491,
504-505. "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code ["PRC"] § 21068;
see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the
CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial. "No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d
at 83. "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to
be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language." Communities for a Better Env't v. Cal. Resources Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 109 ["CBE v. CRA"].
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004)
124 Cal.AppAth 903, 927. The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert
the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the
ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.AppAth at 1220. The EIR also
functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive
citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its
action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376, 392, The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-
government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.
Under the "fair argument" standard applicable to environmental review under Pub. Res.
Code § 21151, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a proj ect
may have an adverse environmental effect —even if contrary evidence exists to support the
agency's decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 931; Stanislaus
Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical
Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602. The "fair
argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR
rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA.
Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 928. An effect on the environment need not be
"momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not
trivial." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83.
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 6
The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard
accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This `fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by
public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies
weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a
preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast,
prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a
better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.
The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve
conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the
record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that
"it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference
to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in
favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 928. As a matter of law,
"substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." Pub.Res.Code § 21080(e)(1); 14 Cal. Code
Regs. § 15064(f)(5). CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting
evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the
environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(5);
Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.AppAth at 935.
A. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the Project
Will Result in a Significant Air Quality Impact.
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 (May 31, 2019) (Exhibit A). Mr.
Offerman concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents of the Project's
residential units to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of
the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world's leading experts
on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in modern
home construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very
long time period. He states, "The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood
products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density
fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in building construction for
flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims."
Offermann Comment, pp. 2-3.
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 7
Mr. Offermann states:
Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average,
spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time
spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to
the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes
almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from
home at least some of the time during the workweek.
Offermann Comment, p. 1.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair
argument that residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of
between 125 and 180 per million. (Offermann Comment, pp. 2-3.) This is far above the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne
cancer risk of 10 per million. Even if the Project uses modern "GARB -compliant" materials, Mr.
Offermann concludes that formaldehyde will create a cancer risk more than ten times above the
CEQA significance threshold. Offermann Comment, p. 3. Mr. Offermann concludes that this
significant environmental impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should
be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure.
In addition to residential exposure, the employees of the hotel and commercial and office
buildings are also expected to experience work -day exposures. Offermann Comment, p. 4. This
exposure for employees would result in "significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to
formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in hotels and
commercial and office buildings." Id. Assuming work eight hour days, five days per week, an
employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of 18.4 per million, which is nearly double the 10 per
million CEQA threshold. Id. at 5.
Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed
in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde
exposure. Id., pp. 4. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce
these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the
applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density
fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -
added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the
buildings' interiors. Offermann Comments, pp. 11-12
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a proj ect's potential environmental
impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2
v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 1597-98 ("under CEQA, the lead agency bears a
burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's
potential health impacts to residents and workers, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory
path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 8
Project's future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the
cancer risk below the SCAQMD level. Offermann Comments, pp. 5-9. Such an analysis would
be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of
a CEQA review.
The failure to address the project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California
Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369, 386 ("CBIA"). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could
enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent
environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally
require lead agencies to consider the environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 CalAth at 800-
801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions
at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801
("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project
could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). hi so holding, the Court expressly held that
CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a
project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Id. at 800
(emphasis added).)
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an
existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents
will be users of the residential units, and employees will be users of the hotel and offices.
Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the Project is
built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the
City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the
Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment
and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process.
The Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA
expressly includes a project's effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must
be addressed in an environmental review. "Section 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example,
requires a finding of a `significant effect on the environment' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the
`environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly."' CBIA, 62 CalAth at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the
Legislature has made clear —in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment —that public
health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000,
subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the thousands of future
residents and employees at the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those
workers is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the
project site.
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 being surrounded by roads with moderate to high traffic (i.e. I-5, Garden Grove
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 9
Freeway, Main Street) and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the ambient air.
Offermann Comments, pp. 10-11. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative
health impacts that will result to residents and employees living and working at the Project.
The Addendum fails to disclose, analyze, or mitigate these new significant impacts.
Because Mr. Offermann's expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a
significant environmental impact to future users of the project, an EIR must be prepared to
disclose and mitigate those impacts.
B. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the Project
Will Result in a Significant Climate Change Impact.
The Addendum relies on an efficiency -based greenhouse gas emission analysis to
determine the significance of the Project's climate change impact. The Addendum concludes
that the Project would have a GHG efficiency of 2.84 MT CO2e/year/service population.
Addendum, p. 119. Since this falls below the 3.0 MT CO2e/year/service population South Coast
Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") threshold of significance, the Addendum
concludes that the Project will not have a significant GHG impact. Id. As explained in the
expert comments of environmental consulting firm SWAPE, this conclusion is incorrect because
the Addendum relies on a flawed methodology. SWAPE Comment, p. 7.
The Addendum calculates the Project's "net emissions" by subtracting the GHG
emissions associated with the existing land uses from the GHG emissions associated with the
currently proposed Project. Based on this analysis, the Addendum concludes that the Project
would not result in a new significant or more severe GHG impact than was analyzed in the 1983
EIR. Addendum, p. 119.
The Addendum errs by making its determination of the significance of the Project's
climate change impact based on the Addendum's "net emissions" calculations. The question is
not whether the additional impact the Project will have is significant. The question is whether
the Project's total emissions will result in a new or more significant impact, where there was not
previously one. Without an analysis of the GHG impact of the Project as a whole, there is no
substantial evidence to support the Addendum's conclusion that the Project will not have a new
or substantially greater significant climate change impact as a result of the significant changes
the Project proposes.
While the Addendum does not include this analysis, SWAPE conducted the analysis in
order to accurately evaluate the Project's GHG impacts. SWAPE Comments, p. 9. Relying on
the Project's total emissions, rather than net emissions, SWAPE found that the Project's
emissions will actually be 7.35 MT CO2e/year/service population, which is more than double the
3.0 MT CO2e/year threshold of significance. Id. SWAPE's expert opinion constitutes
substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant new or more significant impact that
was not previously analyzed in the 1983 EIR. An EIR is needed to fully disclose, analyze, and
mitigate this significant impact.
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 10
C. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the Project
Will Result in a Significant Construction -Related Air Quality Impact.
As discussed below, the Addendum is inadequate because it does not calculate the
Project's construction -related criteria air pollutant emissions. As a result, it makes it impossible
to accurately determine whether or not the Project will have a significant impact from
construction -related criteria air pollutant emissions. The Addendum does, however, include a
California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMOd.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod") air model
for the Project's construction GHG emissions. But even this data is incomplete because the
Addendum only provides the annual CalEEMod modeling, and does not include the summer or
winter output files. SWAPE, p. 4. The summer and winter output files are necessary because
the annual output files calculate emissions as total tons per year. In contrast, the summer and
winter output files estimate emissions as the maximum pounds per day, which is the same
metric used for SCAQMD's significance threshold. SWAPE, p. 4. These files are necessary to
compare the Project's maximum daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's maximum daily
thresholds. Id.
Reviewing the annual CalEEMod output files., SWAPE determined that the Project's
unmitigated construction -related NOx emissions would be 17.83 tons per year. SWAPE, p. 4.
Based on this number, SWAPE was able to determine that the Project's would have an average
daily emission of 97.7 lbs/day, or just under the 100 lb/day threshold of significance. Id. Since
the threshold of significance is based on maximum daily emissions, and the average would be
97.7 lbs/day, SWAPE concludes that there is a fair argument that the Project's maximum daily
NOx emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance of 100 lbs/day. SWAPE,
p. 5.
SWAPE's comments constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the
Project will have a significant air quality impact. An EIR is needed to fully analyze and mitigate
this potentially significant impact.
III. EVEN IF THE 1983 EIR WAS STILL RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT, A
SUPPLEMENTAL OR SUBSEQUENT EIR IS NECESSARY BECAUSE
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WILL RESULT IN NEW AND MORE
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
Even assuming that the 1983 EIR has some relevance to evaluating the environmental
impacts of this Project, numerous substantial changes in the development plans have occurred
such as the inclusion of 1,900 new residential units, new information of substantial importance
has arisen, and substantial changes in circumstances have taken place that require a wholesale
revision of the dated 1983 EIR.
When changes to a proj ect's circumstances or new substantial information comes to light
subsequent to the certification of an EIR for a project, the agency must prepare a subsequent or
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 11
supplemental EIR if the changes are "[s]ubstantial" and require "major revisions" of the previous
EIR. Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th
937, 943. "[W]hen there is a change in plans, circumstances, or available information after a
project has received initial approval, the agency's environmental review obligations "turn[ ] on
the value of the new information to the still pending decisionmaking process." Id., 1 Cal.5th at
951-52. The agency must "decide under CEQA's subsequent review provisions whether project
changes will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the
involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects." Id., 1 Cal.5th at
952. Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 "do[] not permit agencies to avoid their
obligation to prepare subsequent or supplemental EIRs to address new, and previously unstudied,
potentially significant environmental effects." Id., 1 Cal.5th at 958.
All of the evidence indicates that the project considered by the 1983 EIR has undergone
significant changes to the project and its circumstances requiring substantial revisions to that 35-
year old EIR.
A. A New EIR is Required Because the Addition of 1,900 Residential Units is a
Substantial Change from the 1983 Project and there is Substantial Evidence that
the Residential Element of the Project Will Result in Emissions of Formaldehyde
to the Air that Will Have a Significant Health Impact on Future Residents.
Even if the 1983 EIR was somehow relevant to the current Project, the City would still be
required to prepare an SEIR. The inclusion of 1,900 new residential units as part of the Project is
a substantial change from the 1983 project. "The purpose behind the requirement of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration is to explore environmental impacts not
considered in the original environmental document." Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens
v. San Mateo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949 (quoting Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140
Ca1.AppAth 1288, 1296).
As discussed above, the expert opinion of Mr. Offermann constitutes substantial evidence
that the residential component of the Project will result in a significant air quality impact to
residential occupants of the Project. This impact is significant and new. It could not have been
known in 1983 because there was no residential element of the Project at that time. Accordingly,
the City violated CEQA by not preparing an SEIR to analyze and mitigate this new significant
impact.
There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project will
not have a new significant indoor air quality impact as a result of significant changes to the
Project when compared to the project analyzed in the 1983 EIR. Accordingly, the City's
decision to prepare an Addendum rather than an SEIR is not supported by substantial evidence,
and approval of the Project based on the Addendum would constitute an abuse of discretion.
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 12
IV. THE ADDENDUM'S CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
A. There is no Evidence that the Project Will Not Result in a New Significant
Construction -Related Air Quality Impact.
The Addendum concludes that the Project will not have a significant new air quality
impact caused by Project construction. This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence
because the Addendum never evaluates the Proj ect's construction -related criteria air pollutant
emissions. SWAPE Comments, p. 3.
The Addendum's Air Quality Analysis states:
The implementation of the improved off -road equipment emissions standards that have
occurred since the time of the Final EIR would result in Project construction emissions
that are substantially lower than what was anticipated in the Final EIR. The MainPlace
Specific Plan also identified sustainability features to enhance sustainability of the
Project. These sustainability features include the compliance with all SCAQMD
standards for construction equipment and the use of Tier 4 equipment where available
during grading. Additionally, construction of the Proposed Project would be required to
comply with various SCAQMD rules, including Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403
(Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 identify measures to be implemented for
the control fugitive dust generated during ground -disturbance activities. As such,
construction emissions would be lower than what was anticipated for the Approved
Project. No new construction impacts would occur.
Addendum, Appendix F, p. 29.
The Addendum concludes that the Project's construction -related air emissions would be
lower than those anticipated in the 1983 EIR, and therefore the Project would not result in new or
more significant impacts. But there is no evidence to support this conclusion. Neither the
Addendum nor the 1983 EIR quantified or evaluated the level of criteria air pollutants generated
by project construction. Without determining what the actual emissions would be, there is no
evidence on which the Addendum can base its conclusion on that the Project will result in lower
emissions than the 1983 Project.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") is the air pollution
control agency for the region in which the Project is located. SWAPE, p. 3. SCAQMD provides
quantitative maximum daily significance thresholds significance for emissions of several criteria
air pollutants during construction and operational activities. SWAPE, pp. 3-4.
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 13
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Construction -Related Significance Thresholds
NOx
100 Ibs/day
VOC
75 Ibs/day
PM10
150 Ibs/day
PM 2.5
55 Ibs/day
sox
150lbs/day
CO
550 Ibs/day
Lead
3lbs/day
Developmnet projects must use these thresholds of sigmiiance to determine the
significance of emissions assoiated with proejct construction. SWAPE, p. 4. As SWAPE points
out, "absent the quantification of construction air pollutant emissions and comparison to
applicable thresholds, the 2019 Addendum cannot make any significance conclusions regarding
the Project's air quality impacts." Id. The Project's construction -related emissions must be
quantified, compared to the applicable significance thresholds, and mitigated where necessary.
Without any evidence of how much the current Project or the 1983 Project will emit, the
Addendum's conclusion that the substantial changes to the Project will not result in a new or
more significant impact than was analyzed in the 1983 EIR.
B. There is no Evidence that the Project Will not Result in a New Significant
Health Risk to Nearby Sensitive Receptors.
The Addendum includes a health risk assessment ("HRA"). But it looks at the health risk
posed by the Project to new, on -site residential receptors as a result of proximity to I-5 and SR-
22. Addendum, p. 117. But the Addendum fails to conduct an HRA to determine the health risk
posed to existing, nearby sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation.
The Addendum tries to justify this omission by stating:
Construction is temporary, would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from
location to location), and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended
periods of time. Construction would be subject to and would comply with California
regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than 5
minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable
diesel particulate matter emissions. For these reasons, diesel particulate matter emissions
generated by construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial amount of air toxics and the Project would have a less
than significant impact.
Addendum, p. 114. It goes onto say:
MamPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 14
Although the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 300 feet from the
property line of the Project, construction would not occur at the property line, but would
be setback approximately 300 feet the property line that is closest to the sensitive
receptors... According to the GARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005),
pollutant concentrations drop off drastically with distance (i.e., a 70 percent drop off in
pollutant concentrations at 500 feet from the source). Additionally, construction
equipment and vehicles in general have become cleaner and release less emissions than
when the 1983 EIR was certified and when the 1996 Addendum was adopted. As a result,
construction emissions would be lower than what was anticipated in both the 1983 EIR
and the 1996 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.
Addendum, p. 114.
The Addendum concludes that the Project's health risk impact to nearby sensitive
receptors would be lower than those anticipated in the 1983 EIR, and therefore the Project would
not result in new or more significant impacts. But there is no evidence to support this
conclusion. Neither the Addendum nor the 1983 EIR evaluated the health risk impact to nearby
sensitive receptors. Without determining what the actual health risk will be, there is no
evidence on which the Addendum can base its conclusion on that the Project not result in a new
or more significant health risk impact compared to the 1983 Project.
C. There is no Evidence to Support the Addendum's Conclusion that the
Project Will Result in Trip Generation No Worse Than the 1983 Project.
The Addendum concludes that the Project will have no new traffic impact compared to
the project analyzed in the 1983 EIR. Addendum, p. 70. This conclusion is not supported by
substantial evidence because the analysis relies on an inconsistent method of comparing impacts
in the 1983 EIR and the Addendum.
The Addendum calculates trip generation numbers for the proposed Project + existing
baseline and for the full buildout of the project analyzed in the 1983 EIR using the current
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 10th Edition, which was
released in 2017, as well as current understandings of trip internalization at mixed -use
developments and the capture of passerby traffic. Smith Comments, p. 2.
In contrast, the original trip generation estimates used to analyze the project's impacts in
the 1983 EIR were calculated based on trip rates in the then -current traffic model in use in Santa
Ana, which was known as the MMTS/SATC model, and verified by comparison to actual
observe hip generation at 8 large office complexes in Southern California. Id. Unlike the
Addendum, in the 1983 analysis, no adjustments were made for internalization of trips or
passerby attraction.
Relying on current trip generation estimates for both the Project and the original 1083
project, the Addendum concludes that the current Project would generate 6,251 fewer daily trips
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 15
and 995 fewer PM peak hour trips that would the 1983 project. Smith, p. 2. However, Mr.
Smith explains, if the Addendum had compared the Project's trip generation to the trip
generation listed in the 1983 EIR, an opposite conclusion would be reached.
The 1983 EIR estimates a trip generation of 57,245 daily trips for the 1983 Project. This
is 10,056 daily trips than the Addendum estimates the 1983 Project would generate. Moreover,
using the 1983 EIR's estimate, the currently proposed Project would result in 3,805 more PM
peals hour trips than the 1983 Project. Smith, p. 2.
The conclusion that the Project would result in no worse traffic impact than what was
analyzed in the 1983 EIR is incorrect. The conclusion that the proposed Project would result in
no worse traffic conditions than the 1983 Project is the result of introduction of new information
that was not known and could not be known at the time of the 1983 EIR.
D. There is no Evidence to Support the Addendum's Conclusion that the
Project Will Not Result in Impacts to Public Services Because the Addendum
Does not Analyze the Need for New or Expanded Schools.
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant
impact on public services if it would result in the need for new or expanded schools that may
cause a significant environmental impact. CEQA Guidelines, App. G, section XV. The Project
includes 1,900 residential units that were not previously analyzed. While the Addendum never
discloses how many people are expected to occupy the residential portion of the Project, the
climate change analysis uses the California Department of Finance population estimate of 2.9
people per household, which would amount to an additional 5,510 residents living at the Project
site. See Addendum, Appendix H, p. 32. Some portion of these new residents will be children,
and those children will attend schools. An analysis is needed to determine if the additional 5,510
residents will result in a significant impact because of the need for new or expanded schools.
Instead, the Addendum ignores this issue entirely. Without any analysis of the Project's impacts
on schools, the Addendum's conclusion that the Project will not have a significant new impact
on schools is not supported by substantial evidence.
V. The Project Description is Inadequate to Evaluate Environmental Impacts.
The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy of the
EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. As a result, one of the important
requirements of CEQA is that the project description not be confusing, shifting, or open-
ended. This is to ensure that project impacts are analyzed properly and accurately. "An
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally
sufficient EIR." County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 193.
One aspect of the project description that is particularly important to determining a
residential project's environmental impacts is the number of people expected to live in a new
housing development. Many environmental impacts are dependent on the number of residents,
MainPlace Transformation Project
City Council Agenda Item 75D
June 4, 2019
Page 16
including GHG emissions, energy use, traffic, public services, among others. Here, neither the
Addendum nor the Specific Plan itself disclose even an estimate of how many people will live
the in 1,900 proposed units. Indeed the Addendum does not disclose how many bedrooms each
unit will be. The number of bedrooms per unit will have a direct impact on the number of people
inhabiting the 1,900 new units, and the environmental impacts of those units. Without even an
estimate of the proposed residential population, the Project's description is incomplete
Moreover, CEQA requires an analysis of the full build out of a project, meaning the
maximum size project that could be built under the entitlements sought. Stanislaus Natural
Heritage Project b. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Ca1.App.4th 182, 195-206. Without a limit on how
many bedrooms each unit will be, the CEQA analysis must assume the units will all be built with the
maximum number of bedrooms permitted. This was not what was analyzed in the Addendum.
CONCLUSION
For the above and other reasons, the Planning Commission should decline to recommend
the City Council approve the Addendum, and instead direct Planning Staff to prepare and
circulate an FIR for public review. The City may not rely on the nearly 40-year old 1983 EIR.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
EXHIBIT A
HEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ME
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offermamr@IEE-SF.com
hLV://www.ice-s£com
Date: May 31, 2019
To: Rebecca Davis
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: MainPlace Mall - Santa Ana, CA
(IEE File Reference: P-4254)
Pages: 16
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and
the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well -
recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance
building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission,
2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because
occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the
majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are
most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy
their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working
from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a
serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings
relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
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 Im act. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration
of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous
24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the
respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3.
The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136
µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of
18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory
irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non -cancer reference exposure levels
(RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the
Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured
with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and
2
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 (CARE) adopted an airborne toxics
control measure (ATOM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood
products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also
furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air
Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions
from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built
with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde
concentrations that are below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018
(Chan et. al., 2018), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built
after the 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor
formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 25 µg/m3 as
compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 30% lower
median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk
is still 125 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products,
which is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA,
2017a).
With respect to this project, the buildings at MainPlace Mall in Santa Ana, CA include
multi -family residential buildings, a hotel, and commercial and office spaces
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day,
52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks
resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing
commonly found in residential construction
3
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM
materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the
indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations
observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which
is a median of 25 µg/m3.
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year
lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 500 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 125 per million, which is more than 12 times the
SCAQMD CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (SCAQMD, 2015). For occupants that do
not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still
substantially over the SCAQMD CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day
occupancy, more than 6 times the SCAQMD CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).
This project will also include a hotel and commercial and office buildings and the
employees in these buildings are expected to experience work -day exposures (e.g. 40 hours
per week, 50 weeks per year). This exposure for employees is anticipated to result in
significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building
materials and furnishing commonly found in hotels and commercial and office buildings.
Because these hotel and commercial and office buildings will be constructed with CARB
Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code
required amount of outdoor air, the indoor retail building formaldehyde concentrations are
likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2
Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 25 µg/m3.
Assuming that the employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 in of air per day, the
formaldehyde dose per work -day at the hotel is 167 µg/day.
Assuming that the retail 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 73.6 µg/day.
El
This is 1.84 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 18.4 per million, which exceeds the 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
CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that indoor
formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels,
residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this project
and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted prior to
completion of the environmental review.
The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the
environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations
resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings
selected for the building exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses
can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's
CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute
to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative
lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air
ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and
incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment
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/fitrnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This
5
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 ofrooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate
zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the
formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building
material and furnishing loadings (e.g., in 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
C
Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States
conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a
material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the
maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission
rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or
residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines
(OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of
the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the
actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather
provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed
for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of
flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is
less than 31 µg/mz-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, 201.7a), 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.
7
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://berkelevanalytical.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/ru) 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.
Ctn _ Etota( (Equation 1)
Qoa
where:
Cffi = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etomi = 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 hndoor 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 CEOA Cancer and/or Non-
H
Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure
risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the
CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area -specific emission rate of
formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or
furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or
use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation
with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with
the heating/cooling systems.
Outdoor Air Ventilation hnpact. 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
01
winter season. The median 24- hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach
to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum
California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope
construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for
ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air
contaminant concentrations.
The MainPlace Mall project in Santa Ana, CA is surrounded by roads with moderate to high
traffic (e.g. I-5, Garden Grove Freeway, Main Street). As a result of the outdoor traffic
noise, this has been determined to be a sound impacted site according to the Addendum to
the Final Environmental Impact Report (City of Santa Ana, 2019), with noise levels ranging
from 54.4 to 68.6 dBA CNEL as reported in Table N-6, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise
Levels.
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 residential
interiors.
PMz 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 Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (City of Santa Ana, 2019), this
development is located in Santa Ana, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for
PMz.s.
An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PMz.s in
the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to
consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected
future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and
airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor
concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5
10
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 PM2s 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 Fonnaldehvde 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 (GARB, 2009). Other projects such as the AC by
Marriott Hotel — West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main Street,
Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements stipulating
the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre -Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of
formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks.
11
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/112 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.
12
References
AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers'
International Union of North America Local 652.
Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano,
Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652.
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines.
www.bifma.org/paage/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
litips://www.arb.ca. og v/regact/2007/coml2woodO7/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
hiips://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1,
Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001
California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA htip://www.bse.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.asnx.
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.
13
htip://www. energy.ca. gov/2Ol5publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-
CMF.ndf
CDPH,2017. StanclardMethodfortheTestingatidEvaheationof Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions
forindoorSources Using Environmental Chambers, Version L I. California Department of Public
Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Chan, W., Kim, Y., and Singer, B. 2018. Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with
Mechanical Ventilation, Proceedings of Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia, PA.
City of Santa Ana. 2019. Addendum to the Fashion Square Commercial Center Final
Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 1983021103) for the MainPlace Mall Transformation
project. Santa Ana, CA.
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. Mellvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes
and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242.
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/l)rop65/pdf/safeliarborOS 1513,pdf
14
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute,
8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
httD:Hoehha.ca.aov/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.
httDS://www.arb.ca. gov/research/aDr/past/04-310.Ddf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson (2011). Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds
in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air
Quality and Climate 2011). June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA
Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of
Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. California
Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-
326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/ayr/past/03-326.12df.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, CA,htlp://www.ggmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/cega/air-quality-analysis-
handbook
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usgbe.org/credits/homes/v4
15
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIII
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com
http://www.iec-sf.co
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980)
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 -
present.
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in
conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation
development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance
measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and
ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new
State of Washington Ecology Department building.
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air
diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion
Performance Index.
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical
emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured
ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern
and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners,
managers, hygienists, and engineers.
Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March,
1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced
choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated
calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage
treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication
rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to
August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and
field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies
(i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including
evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross -stream contaminant
transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems
and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their
effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co -designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates
and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for a multi -channel automated data acquisition system
used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief En ineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January,
1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor
correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters
on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating
Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to
October, 1979.
Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell
and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing
equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new
equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system
and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material
handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing
the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992)
• Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation
Effectiveness(1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010)
- Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee
- Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper
Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal -OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ)
• Co -Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009)
- Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012)
Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada,
August, 1990.
Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July,
1993.
Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable
Causes, Walnut Creels, CA, February 27, 1997.
Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27,
1997.
Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 61h International Conference on Air
Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.
Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air'99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August,
1999.
Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.
4
Co -Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July
2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi -Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co -Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey,
CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi -Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum,
Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air
2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the
development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air
cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an
alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air
exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during
nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65
product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff's Department
of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls
who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality
and environmental tobacco smoke.
5
Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the
proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of
Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the
Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General's Office in August, 2000 to conduct
a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: "Cause and Prevention of Sick
Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality
Investigators", Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California
Attorney General's Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-
cigarettes.
PEER -REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS:
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low -Infiltration Housing in
Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality,"
Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air
Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537,
1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation
Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers,"
ASHRAEAnnual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of
Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAEAnnual Transactions, 91-
IB, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen,
"Performance of Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing
and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and
K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmos heric
Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
6
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater,
"Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny
Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air
Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air
Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Rout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three
Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International, Volume 15, pp 585-592
1989.
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume
Entrainment in an Office Building," IAO '89, The Human Equation: Health and
Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon
Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air,
1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler
for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot
Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different
Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," MO'91, Healthy
Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor
Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air,
Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a
Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAEJournal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air -Cleaning System in an
Archival Book Storage Facility," IA0192, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, "Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing
Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings," Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
7
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates
Before and After a Building Bake -out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for
Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas
Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local
Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and
Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas
in California Buildings," IAQ T , Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181,
ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., "Pressure and Ventilation
Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing
Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage", Ventilation
and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers,
Netherlands, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions
from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building
Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," ZAQ'96,
Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness," Indoor Air,
Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, "Contaminant Emission Rates from
PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland,
August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, "A Survey of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings", Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colter, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, "Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, "The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on
Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems", Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, "Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints
�R
in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators",
submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical
Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, "ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What's It Good
For, Intermittently Poor IAQ", IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, "Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
New Homes", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, Chemical Concentrations in New
California Homes and Garages", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, "Toluene and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive",
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D 102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, "The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips,
"Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", HB
2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, "Maximizing Information from
Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU,
July, 2012.
W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai,
"Area -Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single -Family Homes", Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, "Infectious Disease
Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications",
Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive
Exposures", Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes",
Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, 'Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential
Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the
Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A
Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report
LBL-12777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and
G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air -Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air -to -Air Heat
Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted
Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air
Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An
interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen,
"Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor
Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American
Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and
J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro,
"Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from
Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
10
R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and
Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol
Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial
Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525,
Elsevier, 1984.
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of
Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August
20-24, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi -
Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office
Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office
Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental
Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides",
an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold
Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System
in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board,
March, 1990.
11
L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for
Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air'90, July 29-August 1990.
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling
and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90,
July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, "Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi -Room Buildings",
Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O'Flaherty, and M. A. Waz "Validation of ASHRAE 129 -
Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Final Report of ASHRAE
Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., "Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation
Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry",
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH,
1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, "A Practical Guide to
Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings", Heat4lglftinglAi
Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling
Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design &
Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, "The IAQ Top 10", Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, "Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in
Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, " IAQ in Air Tight Homes", ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, "The Hazards of E-Cigarettes", ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS:
"Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and
Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution,
Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.
12
"Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat
Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,"
Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA,
May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and
Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26,
1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno,
NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and
the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality
Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System,"
Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers Winter Meetina, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the
Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21,
1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New
Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at
and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial
Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to
a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency
Buildings," National Energy Management
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air
'89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
13
"Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable
Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20,
1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a
workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21,
1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando,
FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C.,
February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24,
1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991;
Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991;
Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ,
November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23,
1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems
Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property
Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium &
International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association
of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA,
September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001,
Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the
Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY,
January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991;
Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV,
December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6,
1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,
14
NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV,
March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995;
Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose
Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the
Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23,
1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November
14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi -Annual
Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness",
Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992.
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in
Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January
26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor
air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers;
Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles,
March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas,
August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993;
Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997.
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA
one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility
managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
"Techniques for Airborne Disease Control", EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San
Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
15
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems", CIHC Conference; San
Francisco, September 29, 1994.
"Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools," an EPA one day air quality management
workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco,
October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose,
March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton,
November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa
Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard "Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ", ASCR Convention; San
Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
"New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems",
AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995,
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air
Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22,
1995.
"Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", American Society of Safety
Engineers Seminar: `Indoor Air Quality — The Next Door'; San Jose Chapter, September
27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
"Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3,
1995.
"Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems", CSU-PPD Conference; October 24,
1995.
"Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements", AIHA;
October 25, 1995.
"IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant
Transport", EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9,
1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change
Effectiveness", Room Vent `96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and
Ventilation Effectiveness'; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996.
"IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development", CCEHSA 1996 Annual
Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
"The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments", California Industrial Hygiene
Conference `96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
IC
"ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments", Pacific Gas and Electric
Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
"Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings", April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30,
1997, Monterey, CA.
"IAQ Primer", Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State
Compensation Insurance Fund's Safety & Health Services Department, November 21,
1996.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates", ASHRAE,
Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
"How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems"; Women in Waste; March
19, 1997.
"Environmental Engineer: What Is It?", Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10,
1997.
"Indoor Environment Controls: What's Hot and What's Not", Shaklee Corporation; San
Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
"Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE
Study", Healthy Buildings/IAQ'97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
"Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments",
PASMA; October 7, 1997.
"Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", Construction
Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
"Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ", University of Tulsa 10`h Annual Conference,
San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
"The Building Shell", Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda
County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28,
1998.
"Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings", The City of Oakland
Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
"Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble", CASBO,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
"Indoor Air Quality", CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998.
"Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration", ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.
17
"Building Air Quality Facts and Myths", The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety
Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
"Building Engineering and Moisture", Building Contamination Workshop, University of
California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental
Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
"Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings", Western Construction
Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect
Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency,
Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3,
2001.
"Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication", Joint
Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County
& Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
"Ventilation," Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21't Century Symposium,
sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
"Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000,
Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
"Closing Session Summary: `Building Investigations' and `Building Design &
Construction', Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
"Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care",
BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23`a
2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
"Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad," University
of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
"Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do", Redwood Empire
Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002.
"Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade", Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX;
April 22, 2002.
"Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations", AIHA Northern California
Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
"Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings", Cal/OSHA Training;
Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.
[IN
"Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation", Invited Speaker, ACGIH
Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9,
2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA,
January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004;
Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA,
November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November
18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
"Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium", Invited
Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
"Mold and Moisture Control", Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
"Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium", Invited Speaker,
Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
"Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings", American
Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
"Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design", University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
"Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints", Northern California Facilities
Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
"Defining Safe Building Air", Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
"Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration", Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008
Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
"Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes", National Center of
Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
"Indoor Air Quality in New Homes", California Energy and Air Quality Conference,
October 29, 2008.
"Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes", ACI Home
Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
"Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air
Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
19
"Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality", Northern California Facilities Exposition,
Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
"New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings",
Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
"Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ",
ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
"Measured IAQ in Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21,
2010.
"Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation", AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings,
Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
"IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)", Northern California
Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
"Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings", Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career
Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
"What Pollutants are Really There ?", ACI Home Performance Conference, San
Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
"Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop", Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
"Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences", US EPA Weatherization Plus
Health, September 7, 2011.
"Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been", Westcon, May 21, 2014.
"Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Indoor
Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
"Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation
System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
"Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes", IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington,
DC, February 18, 2015.
"Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes", Roswell Park
Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
"Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM",
Harris Martin's Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis
Hotel, May 27, 2015.
20
"Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure", FDA
Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2,
2015.
"Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces", Chautauqua Institution,
Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
"Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings", University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
"Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings", BEST Center
Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
"A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts
of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood
Products", AIHce20l6, May, 21-26, 2016.
"Admissibility of Scientific Testimony", Science in the Court, Proposition 65
Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
"Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation", ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December
1, 2016.
21
3'1:1 : :.
S'�►B ® Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
■!APE Litigation Support for the Environment
2656 29`h Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949)887-9013
mhaxemann@swaoe.com
May 28, 2019
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the MainPlace Mall Transformation Project
Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the May 2019 Addendum to the Fashion Square Commercial Center Final
Environmental Impact Report ("2019 Addendum"), the 1996 Addendum to the Environmental Impact
Report for Proposed MainPlace/Santa Ana Expansion ("1996 Addendum"), and the 1983 Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Fashion Square Commercial Center ("1983 EIR") for the MainPlace
Mall Transformation Project ("Project") located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"). The existing MainPlace
Mall consists of 1,130,000 square feet of commercial space and 4,882 parking spaces. The 2019
Addendum proposes to retain the existing 1,130,000 square feet of commercial space and partially
demolish the existing parking areas in order to construct 270,000 square feet of additional commercial
space, 750,000 square feet of office space, a 400-room hotel, and 1,900 residential dwelling units on the
49.04-acre site.
Our review concludes that the 2019 Addendum fails to adequately evaluate the Project's Hazards and
Hazardous Waste, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk
impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and
inadequately addressed. As neither the 2019 Addendum nor the 1983 EIR adequately evaluate the
Project's Air Quality and GHG impacts, and because the currently proposed 2019 Addendum Project
differs significantly from the project evaluated by the 1983 EIR, a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts
that the currently proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
Hazards and Hazardous Waste
Failure to Evaluate Potential Impacts
Neither the 2019 Addendum nor the 1983 EIR adequately evaluate potential hazardous waste issues
because a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was not conducted for the Project Site.
The conduct of a Phase I ESA is a fundamental component of the due diligence process for projects
undergoing CEQA review. A Phase I ESA ensures that hazardous soil or groundwater conditions do not
exist that would pose a risk to construction workers or neighboring residents upon development.
Phase I ESAs are commonly included in CEQA documentation to identify hazardous waste issues that
may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the environment and which may require further investigation,
including environmental sampling and cleanup. Any conditions identified as hazardous in the Phase I
should be addressed through mitigation in a revised EIR Addendum.
Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society
for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM).' Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions
indicative of releases of hazardous substances and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency
databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and
• recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.
Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any "recognized environmental conditions' (RECs) and
recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into
structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs
are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and
groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to
reduce exposure potential to the public.
Consistent with professional due diligence procedures, a Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed
environmental professional is necessary for inclusion in a revised Addendum to identify recognized
environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. A Phase II ESA should be conducted if the
Phase I indicates a recognized environmental condition. Any contamination that is identified above
regulatory screening levels, including California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's Soil
Screening Numbers', should be cleaned up in coordination with the California Department of Toxics
Substances Control(DTSC).
' http://www.astm.orx/Standards/E1527.htm
2 htto://oehha.ca.aov/risk/chhsltable.html
Air Quality
Failure to Evaluate Impacts from Construction Emissions
The 2019 Addendum concludes that there are no new construction impacts, however the 2019
Addendum fails to quantify or evaluate the proposed Project's construction -related criteria air pollutant
emissions. As a result, the Project's air quality impacts and associated emissions are inadequately
addressed and mitigated. Until the Applicant prepares an updated analysis which quantifies and
evaluates the Project's construction emissions, the conclusions made within the 2019 Addendum cannot
be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Regarding the Project's construction emissions, the 2019 Addendum's Air Quality Assessment, provided
as Appendix F, qualitatively states:
"The implementation of the improved off -road equipment emissions standards that have
occurred since the time of the Final EIR would result in Project construction emissions that are
substantially lower than what was anticipated in the Final EIR. The Main Place Specific Plan also
identified sustainability features to enhance sustainability of the Project. These sustainability
features include the compliance with all SCAQMD standards for construction equipment and the
use of Tier 4 equipment where available during grading. Additionally, construction of the
Proposed Project would be required to comply with various SCAQMD rules, including Rule 402
(Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 identify measures to be
implemented for the control fugitive dust generated during ground -disturbance activities. As
such, construction emissions would be lower than what was anticipated forthe Approved
Project. No new construction impacts would occur" (2019 Addendum, Appendix F, p. 29).
As stated in the excerpt above, the 2019 Addendum claims that the air pollutant emissions resulting
from construction of the currently proposed Project would be lower than the emissions anticipated by
the 1983 EIR, and thus the Project would not result in any new significant impacts. This justification is
entirely unsubstantiated, as neither the 2019 Addendum nor the 1983 EIR quantified or evaluated the
Project's construction criteria air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the Applicant cannot make a
comparison between the respective 1983 and 2019 emission levels or rely upon such comparison to
determine Project significance.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the lead air pollution control agency for
the proposed Project, provides quantitative maximum daily significance thresholds for emissions of
several criteria air pollutants during construction and operational activities (see excerpt below).3
'South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
httn://www.ag md.eov/dots/d efau It -sou rce/cega/hand book/stag md-air-gAglity-siznificance-thresholds.pdf
South Coast AOMD Air Ouality Sienificance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction"
Operation'
NO,
1001bs/day
551bs/day
VOC
75 Ibs/day
55 Ibs/day
PMm
150 lbs/day
1501bs/day
PMzs
55 Ibs/day
55 Ibs/day
SM
150 Ibs/day
150 Ibs/day
CO
550 Ibs/clay
550 Ibs/day
I,,wd
3 Ibs/day
3 Ibs/day
As the above excerpt demonstrates, the SCAQMD provides quantitative thresholds which land use
development projects must use to determine the significance of emissions associated with construction
and operational activities.
Therefore, absent the quantification of construction air pollutant emissions and comparison to
applicable thresholds, the 2019 Addendum cannot make any significance conclusions regarding the
Project's air quality impacts. Thus, impacts from the Project's construction -related air pollutant
emissions must be quantified, compared to thresholds, and additional mitigation should be
implemented to the extent necessary.
Furthermore, although the 2019 Addendum fails to report the Project's construction air pollutant
emissions, the Addendum's GHG Assessment includes a California Emissions Estimator Model Version
CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod")4 air model for the Project's construction GHG emissions. However, the
Applicant only provided the annual CalEEMod modeling and failed to include the summer or winter
output files. The annual output files calculate emissions as the total tons per year as compared to the
summer and winter output files which estimate emissions as the maximum pounds per day. Therefore,
the summer or winter output files are necessary to compare the Project's maximum daily construction
emissions to the SCAQMD's maximum daily thresholds. Review of the annual CalEEMod output file
demonstrates that the Project's unmitigated construction NOx emissions would be approximately 17.83
tons/year (2019 Addendum, pp. 2766).1 Based on the annual output files, we calculated that
construction NOx will have an average daily emission of 97.7 Ibs/day.' As a result, there is a fair
4 CaIEEMod website, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-
3-2 15n ove mber2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4
s The GHG Emissions Assessment incorrectly inputted Tier 4 Final mitigation into the CalEEMod air model for
Project construction (2019 Addendum, pp. 2764-2765). The MainPlace Specific Plan simply states that "[gjrading
activities will be required to comply with all SCAQMD standards for construction equipment and will also be
required to use Tier 4 equipment if it is available' (see: https://www.santa-
ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/planning/Final MainPlace SP Online Viewing.pdf, P. 2-22). The MainPlace Specific
Plan does not actually require the use of Tier 4 equipment, and thus the 2019 Addendum cannot rely upon this
mitigation when modeling emissions. As a result, we rely upon the CalEEMod model's unmitigated emissions, as
they more accurately represent the Project's construction emissions.
s Calculate: (17.83 tons/year) x (1 year/365 days) x (2000 Ibs/ton) = 97.7 Ibs/day.
argument that the maximum daily NOx emissions may exceed the SCAQMD's daily maximum threshold
of 100 Ibs/day.' Thus, Project construction may result in a new significant impact which was not
identified or addressed by either the 2019 Addendum or 1983 EIR. Prior to Project approval the
construction emissions should be quantified and compared to the SCAQMD's thresholds in an updated,
Project -specific EIR.
Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The Project Applicant conducts a health risk assessment (HRA) in orderto determine the health risk
posed to new, on -site residential receptors due to proximity to the Interstate 5 freeway and State Route
22 (2019 Addendum, p. 117). Based on this HRA for new, on -site receptors, the 2019 Addendum
concludes that "impacts related to toxic air contaminates would be less than significant" (2019
Addendum, p. 118). This significance determination is incorrect, however, as the 2019 Addendum fails
to conduct a construction or operational HRA to determine the health risk posed to existing, nearbv
sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation. The 2019 Addendum attempts to
justify the omission of an HRA for existing receptors by stating,
"Construction is temporary, would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to
location), and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time.
Construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the
idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than 5 minutes to further reduce
nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable diesel particulate matter
emissions. For these reasons, diesel particulate matter emissions generated by construction
activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
amount of air toxics and the Project would have a less than significant impact" (2019
Addendum, p. 114).
The 2019 Addendum goes onto state,
"Although the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 300 feet from the property
line of the Project, construction would not occur at the property line, but would be setback
approximately 300 feet the property line that is closest to the sensitive receptors... According to
the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005), pollutant concentrations drop off
drastically with distance (i.e., a 70 percent drop off in pollutant concentrations at 500 feet from
the source). Additionally, construction equipment and vehicles in general have become cleaner
and release less emissions than when the 1983 EIR was certified and when the 1996 Addendum
was adopted. As a result, construction emissions would be lower than what was anticipated in
both the 1983 EIR and the 1996 EIR, and no new impacts would occur" (2019 Addendum, p.
114).
As the above excerpt demonstrates, the 2019 Addendum claims that health risk impacts associated with
construction and operation of the currently proposed Project would be lower than the impacts disclosed
' South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
httl)://www.agrnd.gov/dots/default-source/cega/handbook/scag md-air-g ua lity-sign ifi cance-th resholds.pdf
in the 1983 EIR and 1996 Addendum, and thus the Project would not result in any new significant
sensitive receptor impacts. This justification is entirely unsubstantiated, as neither the 1983 EIR nor
1996 Addendum evaluated the health risk Impacts associated with any Project activities. Additionally,
neither the 1983 EIR nor 1996 Addendum made any significance determination regarding the Project's
health risk impacts. Therefore, the Applicant cannot rely on the 1983 EIR or 1996 Addendum to claim
that the 2019 Addendum Project would result in a less than significant impact.
Furthermore, the SCAQMD recommends performing an HRA for any project that is expected to generate
mobile emissions from diesel -powered equipment and trucks. According to SCAQMD's Mobile Source
Toxics Analysis page on SCAQMD's website (emphasis added):
"In August 2002, the SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee approved the 'Health Risk
Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions.' This
document provided guidance for analyzing cancer risks from diesel particulate matter from
mobile sources at facilities such as truck stops and warehouse distribution centers.
Subsequently, SCAQMD staff revised the aforementioned document to expand the analysis to
provide technical guidance for analyzing cancer risks from potential diesel particulate emissions
impacts from truck idling and movement (such as, but not limited to, truck stops, warehouse
and distribution centers, or transit centers), ship hotelling at ports, and train idling. This revised
guidance document titled, 'Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from
Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis' was presented to and
approved by the SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee at its March 28, 2003 committee
meeting. It is suggested that projects with diesel powered mobile sources use the following
guidance document to quantify potential cancer risks from the diesel particulate emission."'
As you can see in the excerpt above, the SCAQMD explicitly states that if the proposed Project generates
or attracts vehicular trips, a mobile source health risk assessment must be prepared. Namely, the
SCAQMD states that "it is suggested that projects with diesel powered mobile sources" use the
SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment Guidance "to quantify potential cancer risks from the diesel
particulate emission."' Given that Project construction is expected to occur over a 16-year period, it is
reasonable to assume that a significant amount of diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known human
carcinogen, will be emitted from the exhaust stacks of equipment required for Project construction
(2019 Addendum, pp. 2769). Similarly, operational activities will result in large amounts of diesel
exhaust from vendor trucks visiting the hotel and commercial land uses over the course of Project
operation (Table T-4, 2019 Addendum, p. 78). As such, the 2019 Addendum should have conducted a
construction and operational HRA, as long-term exposure to DPM and otherTACs may result in a
significant health risk impact and therefore, should be properly assessed.
8 SCAQMD (2019) Mobile Source Toxics Analysis, http://www.aamd,gov/home/regulations/ceaa/air-auality-
an a I_ysis-hand book/mobile-sou rce-toxics-analysis.
9 SCAQMD (2019) Mobile Source Toxics Analysis, http://www.aclmd.gov/home/regulations/ceaa/air-quality-
analvsis-h a nd book/mobile-sou rce-toxics-analysis.
Finally, the omission of a quantified health risk assessment is inconsistent with the most recent guidance
published by Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible
for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct health risk assessments in California.
In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for
Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.11 This guidance
document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment.
Grading and construction activities for the proposed Project will produce emissions of DPM through the
exhaust stacks of construction equipment over an approximately 16-year period, according to the
construction schedule utilized to model construction GHG emissions (2019 Addendum, pp. 2769). The
OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for
cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors." Once construction is complete, Project operation will
include approximately 61,050 daily vehicle trips, which will generate substantial additional exhaust
emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (Table T-4, 2019
Addendum, p. 78). The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than
six months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure
duration of 30 years be used to estimate cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident
(MEIR)." 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, per
SCAQMD and OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from Project construction and operation should
have been evaluated by the 2019 Addendum. These recommendations reflect the most recent health
risk assessment policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby, existing sensitive receptors
from construction and operation should be included in a Project -specific EIR.
Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse Gas Efficiency Incorrectly Evaluated
In order to determine the significance of the Project's GHG emissions, the 2019 Addendum prepared an
efficiency based GHG analysis. Based on the GHG efficiency analysis, the Applicant concludes that the
proposed Project's GHG efficiency would be approximately 2.84 MT CO2e/year/service population,
which falls below the SCAQMD's 3.0 MT COze/year/service population significance threshold for the
year 2035, and thus would not result in any new GHG emissions impacts (2019 Addendum, P. 119). This
significance conclusion is incorrect, however, as the Applicant relies on incorrect methodology to
calculate the Project's GHG emissions efficiency.
In an attempt to quantitatively demonstrate a less than significant GHG impact, the Applicant first
calculates the Project's "net emissions" by subtracting the GHG emissions associated with the existing
land uses from the GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project, which results in annual
to "OEHHA (Feb.2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,
https://oeh ha. ca.aov/media/down loads/crnr/2015eu idancem a n u al. pdf.
" "OEHHA (Feb.2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,
https://oehha.ca.gov/med_ia/`downloads/crnr/2015xuidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18
12 "OEHHA (Feb.2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,
httos://oehha.ca.eov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-6, p. 8-15
emissions of 22,698 MT CO2e/year (2019 Addendum, p. 119—120)," Then, the Applicant calculates the
GHG emissions efficiency by dividing the Project's "net emissions" by the anticipated service population
of 8,001 people, which results in a GHG emissions efficiency of approximately 2.84 MT
CO2e/year/service population (see excerpt below) (2019 Addendum, p. 119—120).14
Table AQ-6: Net Service Population GHG Emissions
Emissions Source (Net New Building Area)
Net
Emissions
MTCO2e/year
Net
Service
Population
MTCO2e/yea
rl Service
Population
Originally Approved (1983) Plan
38,787
5,181
7,49
Current Entitlement
22,325
4,462
5.00
Proposed Project
22,698
8,001
2.84
Proposed Project Minus Originally Approved
(1983) Plan
15,089
2,829
4.55
Proposed Project Minus Current Entitlement
373
3,539
-2.16
Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, 2019
As a result of the calculated GHG efficiency above, the 2019 Addendum concludes that "the impacts
related to GHG emissions would be less than significant" (2019 Addendum, p. 119). We find this
significance determination to be unsubstantiated, as the Project Applicant incorrectly utilizes "net
emissions" to calculate the Project's GHG emissions efficiency.
The Applicant's reliance on the proposed Project's net GHG emissions, rather than the Project's total
GHG emissions, is incorrect and inconsistent with guidance set forth by the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR). In the Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action," OPR concluded that lead
agencies cannot simply consider whether a project increases or decreases GHG emissions at the project
site, but must consider the effect that the project will have on the larger environment. Accordingly, if a
lead agency wants to use a net emissions approach by subtracting existing on -site emissions from the
proposed project emissions, it must support that decision with substantial evidence that those existing
emissions sources will be extinguished and not simply displaced."
It is clear, however, that the existing land uses will be retained on the site and ultimately operational as
part of the total Project. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment states that the "total building area
for MainPlace Mall is currently 1,130,000 sf of commercial / retail uses" and goes on to state that the
13 Net Emissions = Proposed Project Emissions — Existing Emissions = 58,835 MT CO2e/year — 36,137 MT CO2e/year
= 22,698 MT CO2e/year
14 2019 Addendum Per Service Population Efficiency = Net Emissions / Service Population =
(22,698 MT CO2e/year) / 8,001 people = 2.84 MT CO2e/year/SP
16 "Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action." California Natural Resources Agency, December 2009,
available at: htto://resources.ca.gov/cega/dots/Final Statement of Reasons.odf, p.83-84
16 See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.4, subd. (a) ("The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions
calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency
should make a good -faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.")
Project would additionally develop "270,000 sf of commercial (bringing the total commercial
development to 1,400,000 sf)" (2019 Addendum, pp. 2627). Thus, the Project's total commercial land
use size of 1,400,000 square feet includes the existing 1,130,000 square feet of commercial space, so
both the existing and newly developed land uses will be operational as part of the proposed Project. As
a result, the GHG emissions associated with the existing land uses and the new proposed land uses will
be additive during Project operation, and the total operational emissions should be utilized to calculate
GHG efficiency.
Updated Greenhouse Gas Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impact
In an effort to adequately evaluate the Project's GHG emissions impacts, we prepared an updated GHG
emissions efficiency analysis using correct methodology. Namely, we relied upon the proposed Project's
total GHG emissions, rather than the "net emissions" estimated by the 2019 Addendum. Dividing the
Project's total GHG emissions of 58,835 MT CO2e/yr by a service population value of 8,001 people, we
find that the Project would emit approximately 7.35 MTCOze/SP/yr (Table AQ-5, p. 119).11 When we
compare the Project's per service population GHG emissions to the 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT
CO2e/SP/yr, we find that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact (see table below).
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Efficiency
Source Project Emissions Unit
Amortized Construction+ Operational Emissions 58,835 MTCO2e/year
Maximum Service Population 8,001
Per Service Population Annual Emissions 7.35 MT COze/SP/year
2035 SCAQMD Project Level Efficiency Threshold 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year
Exceed? Yes
As you can see in the table above, when we compare the per service population emissions estimated by
SWAPE to the SCAQMD threshold of 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for 2035, we find that the Project's emissions
would significantly exceed the threshold, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact that was not
addressed or identified in the 1983 EIR, 1996 Addendum, or 2019 Addendum. According to CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.4(b), if there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project
are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or
requirements, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared for the project. As a result, the Applicant must
prepare a Project -specific EIR which includes an updated analysis of the proposed Project's GHG
emissions impacts and implements mitigation to the extent necessary.
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
v SWAPE Per Service Population Efficiency = Total Emissions / Service Population = (58,835 MTCO2e/year) / (8,001
service population) _ (7.35 MTCO2e/SP/yr)
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
twt e:lcyvi. {�.,L,rA�.
Kaitlyn Heck
10
■I+MI`G Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
ian C
y pW far the Envlronmant
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA,1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 - present);
• Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2014;
• Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 -
1998);
• Instructor, College of Maria, Department of Science (1990-1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986-1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984-1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst.
With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert wiriness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science hic., Matt's duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi.
Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and perm is for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation-
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy;
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training or EPA's scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the regions 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy -making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
Conducted aquifer tests.
Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports. Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.P., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina,
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.P., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. U, 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
0
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009-
2011.
KAITLYN MARIE HECK
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
SWQPIE LltigaticnSupportfortheEnvironment
EDUCATION
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Mobile: (714) 287-8462
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: kaitlyn@swape.com
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOSANGELES B.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETY JUNE2017
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST
SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING
SANTA MONICA, CA
• Calculated roadway, stationary source, and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects.
• Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) released during construction and operational activities of
proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod and EMFAC2014 emission factors.
• Utilized AERSCREEN, a screening dispersion model, to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.
• Organized reports containing figures and tables that compare the results of criteria air pollutant analyses to CEQA thresholds and
that discus results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects.
SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
• Quantified GHG emissions of a "business as usual" scenario for proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod.
• Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05, and SB 32 GHG reduction targets, with measures
described in CARB's Scoping Plan for each land use sector, and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air
Quality Management Districts in California.
• Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets.
PROJECT ANALYST: HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF WORKER EXPOSED TO SILICA EMITTED DURING CEMENT
SANDING
• Participated in interviews with subject to discuss working conditions and work history. Prepared Memorandum of subject's responses
for client's use.
• Calculated the level of worker exposure to cement dust and silica in accordance with the U.S. EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook.
• Compiled and organized witness testimony and peer reviewed data on human health effects from exposure to cement dust and silica.
• Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation.
PROJECT MANAGER: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF ACRYLAMID PRODUCTS FOR PROPOSITION 65 COMPLIANCE
DETERMINATION
• Calculated the lifetime human exposure to acrylamide for approximately fifteen Proposition 65 cases.
• Analyzed laboratory testing data to determine the level of consumption required to meet the No Significant Risk Level (NSRL).
• Compared consumption levels to public dietary trends to determine if the average person's consumption would exceed the NSRL.
• Prepared final analytical exposure assessment and produced data tables for use in environmental enforcement statute of
Proposition 65 cases.
PROJECT ANALYST: MODELING OF UNCOMBUSTEDHYDROCARBONS AND PARTICULATE MATTER BY INDUSTRIAL FIRE
• Prepared AERSCREEN modeling of uncombusted hydrocarbons and particulate matter under different exposure scenarios. Produced
tables and figures that compare the results of the AERSCREEN models.
• Organized Memorandums to discuss methodology and results for use as Export testimony in environmental litigation.
AlI tO HIA110
0
SMITH ENGINEERING 6, MANAGEMENT
May 30, 2019
Mr. Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: MainPlace Mall Transformation Project P19027
Dear Mr. Drury:
At your request, I have reviewed the Addendum (hereinafter the "Addendum") to
the Fashion Square Commercial Center Final Impact Report (SCH 1983021103)
(hereinafter the "FEIR") for the MainPlace Mall Transformation Project (the
"Project") in the City of Santa Ana (the "City"). My review is specific to the Traffic
and Circulation sections of those documents
My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic
Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering
practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and
performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections
of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) including residential and mixed use complexes. My
professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are summarized below.
Background
The City is attempting to approve the proposed Project as an Addendum to an
FEIR prepared in 1983. Such addenda are only allowed under CEQA for "minor
modifications" to previously approved projects. Substituting 1900 units of mid -
rise housing for 750,000 square feet of office use and 131,175 square feet of
retail commercial is obviously not a minor modification. From a traffic and
circulation perspective, office and retail uses have very different peak period
inbound vs. outbound trip patterns compared to residential uses. Office and
retail trips tend to originate from and be destined to residential concentrations
I'RA I'R1('. 'IRANSPORT A I' ION • NAN.AG EM CNT
5311 Lowry Road, Union Cit , CA 94587 to]: 510.489.9477 tux: 510,4899478
Mr. Richard Drury
May 30, 2019
Page 2
while residential trips are predominantly oriented to non-residential
concentrations — the uses proposed to be swapped have very different trip
distributions.
In addition, under CEQA, addenda are not allowed if there are changed
circumstances since the prior EIR or if there is new information that was not
known in 1983. In the 35' years since the FEIR was certified, 37' years since
baseline traffic data was collected, traffic and circulation circumstances are
certain to have changed and there clearly is new information that was not known
in 1983.
We explore the above issues in the paragraphs below
The Addendum Bases Its Trip Generation on New Information That Was Not
Known in 1983, That Is Inconsistent With the Trip Generation Analysis That
Was Performed in the 1983 FEIR and That Results In Opposite Conclusions
from an Actual Comparison of Trip Generation of the Currently Proposed
Project to that Analyzed in the 1983 FEIR
In the Addendum, trip generation for the currently proposed Project plus
completed portions of the project as approved in the 1983 FEIR and for the full
project as studied in the 1983 FEIR were both compiled using the current edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 10th Edition (released
2017) and current conventional understanding of internalization at mixed use
complexes and capture of passerby traffic.
The original trip generation estimates for the project analyzed in the 1983 FEIR
were compiled based on trip rates embedded in the then current traffic model in
use in Santa Ana known as the MMTS/SATC model (rates probably derivative in
some way from the then current Trip Generation, 401 Edition) and verified by
comparison to actual observed trip generation at 8 large similar office complexes
in Southern California. There was no adjustment for internalization of trips or
passerby attraction.
Using its own current trip generation estimates for both the current Project and
the original 1983 project, the Addendum concludes in Table T-6 that the currently
proposed Project would generate 6251 fewer daily trips and 995 fewer PM peak
hour trips than would completion of the original 1983 approved project.
Consequently, it is able to make intersection and roadway performance
computations that appear to demonstrate that the proposed Project would
produce traffic conditions that are no worse than what would occur with
completion of the originally approved project. However, this is a distorted result.
However, if the Addendum had compared the trip generation of the current
proposed project (total of completed part of original plus current proposal) to the
'I'R Al 1711 I'R:\N 5 P OR T A r I ON • M.AN AGEM GN -f
5311 Lowrjr Road, Union Chi-, CA 94587 tel: 510A 9.9#77 tax: 510.4829478
Mr. Richard Drury
May 30, 20t9
Page 3
actual trip generation of the approved project as estimated in the 1983 FEIR, an
opposite conclusion would be reached. The daily trip generation estimated for
the original project in 1983 was 57,245 daily trips, 10,056 daily trips lower than
the Addendum estimates for completion of the original project and 3805 PM peak
hour trips lower than the Addendum estimates for the current Proposal plus the
completed portions of the original project. Hence, the conclusion that the
proposed Project would result in no worse traffic conditions than completion is
the result of introduction of new information that was not known and could not be
known at the time of the 1983 FEIR.
The Addendum Computations That Purport To Demonstrate the Proposed
Project Would Result in Acceptable Intersection Traffic Conditions Are the
Result of Nuanced Differences in Assumptions in the Intersection Capacity
Utilization Computation Procedure Rather than Differences in Current
Project vs Approved Project Trip Generation
In the Addendum Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) computations, the
Addendum analysts assume left turn lane capacities 11.75 percent higher than in
the computations supporting the FEIR. In the case of double left turn lanes, the
Addendum assumes left turn capacities that are 17.56 percent to 26.87 percent
higher than assumed in the FEIR ICU calculations. This inconsistency has a
tremendous effect on overall ICU rate and Level of Service (LOS) grading.
Also, the Addendum computations assume a Peak Hour Factor of 1.0 — that is an
assumption that traffic would approach each intersection and intersection
approach at a constant flow rate over the course of the peak hour. In the 1983
ICU calculations, it would have been conventional for the actual observed peak
hour factor for the intersection, and perhaps for each approach individually, to
have been considered. Consideration of the actual peak hour factor, which
accounts for the actual surges and ebbs in approach flows by comparing the
approach rate in the busiest 15 minutes to the peak hour as a whole, results in a
worse ICU than if a constant approach rate is assumed. Hence, the traffic
performance computations in the Addendum are not directly comparable to or
consistent with those in the FEIR and minimize the propensity to disclose
impacts.
Current Traffic Has Changed Dramatically From That Underlying the 1983
FEIR
Traffic has changed dramatically in the vicinity of the project site. This is
illustrated by changes in traffic volume measured on the three freeways that
closely approach the site. Caltrans traffic census records posted on the internet
only provide data from years 1993 to 2016. The changes over this period near
the Project site are shown on the table below.
'I'R Al PIC I'R:% N 5 P o It T AI' I ON AI A N AG LM L N I'
5311 Lown' Road. Union Gtv, CA 94587 tel: SW.4899477 60x: 510.48994M
Mr. Richard Drury
May 30, 2019
Page 4
Route
Location
1993
PK HR
2016
PK HR
%
CHG
1993
Daily
2016
Daily
%
CHG
1-5
Chapman —SR22/571nt
12,300
18,400
+49.6
185,000
221,500
+19.7
SR 22/57 Int - Main
14,200
31,000
+118.3
249,000
366,000
+47.0
Main — E- 17th
15,200
29,500
+94.1
232,000
362,500
+56.3
SR-22
Orange City or-1-5/SR 57
15,000
21,000
+40.0
206,000
243,000
+18.0
15/SR57 - Main
11,800
10,900
-7.6
159,000
196,700
+23.7
Main - Glassell
11,700
102800
-7.7
157,000
145,200
-7.5
SR-57
Jct 1-5/SR 22 - Chapman
14,900
21,000
+40.9
173,000
244,300
+41.2
These high -volume, high -percentage changes in traffic over just 23 of the 36
years that have intervened between certification of the FEIR and publication of
the Addendum are indicative of changed conditions that would preclude
environmental clearance of this Project through an Addendum
Conclusion
Given the foregoing, I conclude that use of an Addendum for environmental
clearance of this Project is inappropriate.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
+ N
i8iO No. 0938 P;m
hn......... 1011
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
f It AI I IC 'I'R:\ N 51'0 It TA II ON • AI ANA G L NIL NT
5311 Lowry Road, Union Cit'r, CA 94587 to 510AS9.9477 111v: SI0A89.9478
Mr. Richard Drury
May 30, 2019
Page 5
Attachment 1
Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
'I'RAPPIC l'R:AN 5POR T A I ION NI ANAGE NIL N I'
5311 Lowry Road, Union Citr, CA 94587 tel: 510.489.9477 1.Ix: 510.4899478
Mr. Richard Drury
May 30, 2019
Page 6
-`.1: I II I:NtiIN.:lcki�s� F,• A'lANilCEiv,[,[.KT
f
DANIEL T. SMITH, Jr.
President
EOUCATLON
Enc4alm of Scimcn.YnteUcimiry: 1967
Unlaro$$clmce, Tmnwatmlm Plmmag. Utam*yra$Califomia. 94eloy. IN&
CaGfoanlaNa.2k9k3 ([null Nevada No790(Giv'2131 WuNalwa No. 29337(Civil)
Caliawffiallo. 930 gra$dc) Arizona No. (CK
PROFESSIONAL EXPERUNCE
Smiih Eagiueeril & NIaaa 1993 iopmunc. presidam.
ARSAsroclama 000b . 99 3. Pawkier.VuepraafttPrJudpvl.Trmspmu'dottEuggimar.
13114trar. Caber& Company; 1968 to 19N. Sa�aalrllamsportadonknaaaer.
persona speciellies andproyect WTe en ceinclwde:
Litigation. Gaasmtiimg. kmd&m crossuWn lnveedgalsoma and eayen wittrus mfimoa}• im 8ilhwa},. des m
transit design a ad.tra$6cemgin ujultare 6u Witagemaomwalmc invultmag transporta*u me% issues: traffic
accidema maole9mg klghway daelgn or traffic ealgiaean; $xtart, land we, awA devetapamma autwi icvoloiag
accom a adlmmsporratramimp": patkig and othertra$dc mdleatmiro atiou wmari.
i III ....It V�n,J. U.-Lm f P,.{:41.9:•di L,:: 5 10 4V Cry'"" L. Pn 14' a :',
'I'ItAIPIf .'IRSAN 5 I 1 0 R T A I ON • RI AN AG E aI LN -I
5311 Lawry Roma, Union Citr, CA 94587 tcl: 510.489947% Ina: 510.4899478
Mr. Richard Drury
May 30, 2019
Page 7
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface
bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus
development of functional plans for a new BART station at Cohna. Project manager for design of multi -modal
terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Chaim Long Range Transit
Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed -transfer hub and development of
three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco
International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and
San Diego Lindberg,
Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco;
and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical
centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse
and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts
throughout western United States.
Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special
event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking
feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking .
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop
techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif),
Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential
traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo
County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and
experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on
neighborhood traffic control.
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on
bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene,
Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective
retrofits of undererossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Hamburger at al. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with LM. Pei WRT Associated, 1984.
Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979.
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control
Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research
Record 570, 1976.
Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with
Donald Appleyard, 1979,
'I'RAI I'I I: 'I'R,\N5I-OR TA'I'I ON • Al ANA G EAI LN I'
5311 Lowre Roars. Union Cite CA 94587 tel; 5I0.489.9477 In: 5I0.489 .9k78