Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #18Hall, Jennifer From: Hall, Jennifer Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:38 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Comment re: Cabrillo Town Center Project - Agenda Item No. 18 Attachments: 2023.10.02 FINAL CC Comment Letter w Ex.pdf From: Marjan Kris Abubo < Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:37 PM To: Comment@santa-ana.org; Hall, Jennifer <jhall@santa-ana.org>; Gomez, Pedro <PGomez@santa-ana.org> Cc: < Subject: Comment re: Cabrillo Town Center Project - Agenda Item No. 18 Good afternoon Ms. Hall, Mr. Gomez, Mayor Amezcua, and Honorable Council Members, On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), attached please find comments on the proposed mixed -use Cabrillo Town Center Project in the City of Santa Ana. This item is scheduled to be heard at the October 3, 2023 City Council hearing as Agenda Item 18. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and please confirm receipt of this email at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Marjan R. Abubo Lozeau I Drury LLP 1 T 510.836,4200 F 510.836A205 October 2, 2023 Via Email Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Jessie Lopez, Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan, Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez, Councilmember Phil Bacerra, Councilmember Jonathan Ryan Hernandez, Councilmember David Penaloza, Councilmember City Council City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Comment@santa-ana.org 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com Oakland, CA 94612 I Marjan@alozeaudrury.com Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Jhall@santa-ana.org Pedro Gomez, Senior Planner Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 PGomez@santa-ana.org Re: SAFER Appeal on Cabrillo Town Center Project (CPC-2021-10345-DB-SPP- SPR-HCA), October 3, 2023 City Council Meeting — Agenda Item No. 18 Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Council Members: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") in support of their appeal regarding the Cabrillo Town Center Project (Site Plan Review No. 2023-01, Tentative Tract Map No. 2023-03) which proposes the development of a five -story mixed -use building at 1901 and 1971 East Fourth Street and 515 and 525 North Cabrillo Park Drive in Santa Ana ("Project"). The City has not conducted any environmental review for this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Rather, the City is claiming that the Project was adequately reviewed in the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006031041), certified in 2007, and a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, certified in 2018 (collectively, "MEMU EIR"). As discussed below, based on new information available since the 2018 SEIR was certified, the Project will have new significant impacts on air quality that were not analyzed in the MEMU EIR, and there are mitigation measures available to reduce those impacts. SAFER therefore respectfully requests that the City Council grant SAFER's appeal and ensure that the Project complies with CEQA prior to approval. Cabrillo Town Center Project City of Santa Ana October 2, 2023 Page 2 of 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to demolish four commercial office buildings and construct a five - story mixed -use building that includes 449 residential units, a 898-stall parking garage, 6,000 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of live/work area. The Project also includes the development of a 58-unit townhome community with six three-story buildings and an additional 127 parking spaces. LEGAL STANDARD The 2007 EIR and 2018 SEIR serve as a program EIR for the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone. For program EIRs, "later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." (14 CCR § 15168(c).) A program EIR may only serve "to the extent that it contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project." (Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1171 [quoting Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envtl. Dev. v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 615].) No new environmental document for a project is required if the project is "within the scope" of the program EIR. (14 CCR § 15168(c)(2).) Whether a project is "within the scope" of the program EIR is determined by whether a subsequent EIR is required under Guidelines section 15162. (Id.) Pursuant to Guidelines sections 15162(a) and 15168(c), a project is not within the scope of a previous program EIR where: (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 Cabrillo Town Center Project City of Santa Ana October 2, 2023 Page 3 of 6 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 effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (14 CCR § 15162.) If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a separate project and the lead agency must prepare an initial study to determine "whether the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior environmental impact report." (PRC § 21094(c); see Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1320-21.) If there is a fair argument that the Project may result in new significant impacts, the agency must prepare an EIR, which can "tier" off the program EIR. (PRC § 21094; 14 CCR § 15168(c)(1).) The tiered EIR may "incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior [EIR] and [] concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR]" (PRC § 21068.5.) DISCUSSION I. An EIR is required because of new information regarding significant indoor air quality impacts and new available mitigation measures since certification of the MEMU EIR. The City can only exempt the Project from further CEQA review if the Project is "within the scope" of the MEMU EIR, as determined by the criteria of Guidelines section 15162. (14 CCR § 15168(c)(2).) Pursuant to Guidelines section 15162, the Project is not within the scope of the MEMU EIR where new information since the certification of the 2018 SEIR demonstrates that "[t]he project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration," (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(A)) or that mitigation measures "which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure" (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(D)). Alternatively, a subsequent EIR is required under Guidelines Section 15162 when the same standards are met. Under those standards, an EIR or subsequent EIR is required because the indoor air quality impacts from formaldehyde could not have been known when the 2007 or 2018 EIRs were certified and because of new mitigation measures available to mitigate the Project's indoor air quality impacts. A. The Project's significant impacts to human health from indoor emissions of formaldehyde as well as the mitigation measures available to reduce that impact are new information that could not have been known prior to 2019. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of Cabrillo Town Center Project City of Santa Ana October 2, 2023 Page 4 of 6 the Project. Mr. Offermann is one of the world's leading experts on indoor air quality, in particular emissions of formaldehyde, and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and set forth in Mr. Offermann's comment, the Project's emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents and employees of the Project. Mr. Offermann's comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant ("TAC"). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in a million. (Ex. A, p. 2.) Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in home and apartment building 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 residential, office, and retail building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." (Id., p. 3.) Mr. Offermann concludes that future residents of the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming that all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. A, p. 4.) This exceeds SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Importantly, Mr. Offermann's conclusions are based on studies conducted in 2019 and therefore were not available when the 2007 EIR or 2018 SEIR were approved. Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts must be analyzed and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Ex. A, pp. 5-7, 13-14.) He prescribes a methodology for estimating the Project's formaldehyde emissions to do a more project -specific health risk assessment. (Id., pp. 7-9.). Importantly, the previous 2007 EIR and 2018 SEIR did not address indoor air quality impacts or formaldehyde emissions. Because these impacts were not previously analyzed at all, the fair argument standard applies and an EIR is required to address and mitigate this impact. When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project's air quality impacts. (See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.AppAth 949, 960 [County applies Air District's "published CEQA quantitative criteria" and "threshold level of cumulative significance"]; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 110-111 ["A `threshold of significance' for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant"].) The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district Cabrillo Town Center Project City of Santa Ana October 2, 2023 Page 5 of 6 significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 327 ["As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact."].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an "unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]" exists. (See San Mateo Gardens, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 958.) The failure to address the Project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 ("CBIA"). In that case, the Supreme Court expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. 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 800-01.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801.) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." (Id. at 800.) The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Once built, the Project will begin to emit formaldehyde at levels that pose significant direct and cumulative health risks to residents of the Project. The Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of air emission and health impact by the project on the environment and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The existing TAC sources near the Project site would have to be considered in evaluating the cumulative effect on future residents of both the Project's TAC emissions as well as those existing off -site emissions. 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.) Likewise, "the Legislature has made clear —in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment —that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." (Id. [citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d)].) It goes without saying that the future residents and employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents must be subjected to CEQA's safeguards. Cabrillo Town Center Project City of Santa Ana October 2, 2023 Page 6 of 6 The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98. ["[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts."].) The proposed Project will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer -causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future employees to cancer risks potentially in excess of SCAQMD's threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 in a million. As discussed above, the Project will result in a significant impact to human health from indoor emissions of formaldehyde. This potential indoor air quality impact could not have been known until 2019 when the first study was published showing that homes using composite wood products that comply with CARB standards vastly exceed CEQA significance thresholds for cancer risk. Therefore, this impact was not known and could not have been known when the 2007 EIR was certified or in 2018 when the SEIR was certified. When scientific information was not available at the time of prior CEQA review, more recent studies showing that a project may have more serious human health or environmental impacts constitute significant new information requiring a subsequent EIR. (Security Envt'l Sys. v South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 110, 124; Meridian Ocean Sys. v. State Lands Com. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, 169) As such, under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168, and 15164 and an EIR is required. (See 14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(3), 15164(a), 15168.) Additionally, Mr. Offermann suggests mitigating the Project's indoor air quality impacts by requiring all composite wood products used in construction of the Project to be manufactured with CARE -approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. (Ex. A, pp. 13-14.) Because indoor air quality impacts were not analyzed in the 2007 EIR or 2018 SEIR, the City has not considered NAF composite wood products. Furthermore, such NAF products have only become readily available recently and, thus, could not have been considered in 2007 and 2018. Because the 2007 EIR and 2018 SEIR do not adopt any measures to reduce indoor formaldehyde emissions, an EIR is required. CONCLUSION Accordingly, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council grant the appeal and direct staff to prepare an EIR for the Project in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Marj an Abubo Lozeau I Drury LLP EXHIBIT A ME INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ME 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermannaJEE-SF.com hqp://www.iec-sf. com Date: September 23, 2023 To: Marjan Kris Abubo Lozeau I Drury LLP Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Cabrillo Town Center Project, Santa Ana, CA IEE File Reference: P-4753) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well - recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the 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. 2of19 The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under -measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). 3of19 With respect to the Cabrillo Town Center Project, Santa Ana, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g., 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. 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 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020). Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g., for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which 4of19 is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the commercial space employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work -day is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 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. In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million. Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. Additionally, the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study ("MATES V") identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 416 per million due to the site's elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area's high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. 5of19 Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no -added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 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 specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non -cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 6of19 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea -formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. 7of19 CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area -specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area -specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area -specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 8of19 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Etotal Cin = (Equation 1) Qoa where: C,n = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/11) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non -Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non -cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non - Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the 9of19 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. Further, we are not asking that the builder "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 above (i.e. Pre - Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated 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 10 of 19 result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (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. According to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Project (ICF, 2018), the Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-5, East 4th Street, North Cabrillo Park Avenue, etc.). This report state in Table T3.7.1, the existing 2018 ambient noise levels range from 63.7 to 73.0 dBA CNEL. Thus this Project is located in a sound impacted area. In order to design the buildings for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on -site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one -week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. 11 of 19 As a result of the anticipated high outdoor noise levels, the Project will likely require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Project (ICF, 2018), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, the SCAQMD's MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 416 per million at the Project site due to the site's high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area's high levels of motor vehicle traffic. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient 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. 12 of 19 Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 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. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "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 above (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. 13 of 19 Outdoor Air Ventilation Miti ag tion. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2_5 Outdoor Air Concentration Miti ag tion. 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. References BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca. og v/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf 14 of 19 California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. hLtps://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aDr/aast/03-326.1)df. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.eneray. ca. gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. 15 of 19 ICF. 2018. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects. 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: htt-D://www.oehha.ca.izov/-Drol)65/bdf/safeharborO8l5l3.1)df OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: httD:Hoehha.ca.izov/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.aov/research/al)r/Dast/04-3 I O.Ddf Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (121 International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code -Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualiW- analysis-handbook 16 of 19 USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.us bg c.org/credits/homes/v4 17 of 19 "=/ • INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California ". In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality " when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single -Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 18 of 19 Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Page sNOC. aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cEm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rate I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) — 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board — 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood — 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF — 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) — 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board — 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood — 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF — 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 19 of 19 cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no -added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 20 of 19 Alcala, Abigail From: Gomez, Pedro Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7:53 AM To: eComment Cc: Pezeshkpour, Ali; Orozco, Norma; Hall, Jennifer Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project Attachments: emailsignature-aboutfairfieldbutton-01_22e9699f-6b84-4dab-9f3c- db4ad3e39fd6.png; emailsignature-aboutfairfieldbutton-01_ 22e9699f-6b84-4dab-9f3c-db4ad3e39fd6.png; DOC100223-009.pdf EM I'm forwarding this comment letter along. It's in regards to Public Hearing Item No. 18 as part of today s City Council meeting/agenda. Im Senior Planner I Planning Division City of Santa. Agra. 120 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex IVY 20 1 Santa. Agra., CA 92701. Phone: 71.667,2790 1 Erna& V o ezCa)santa-ana.or From: Pam Sapetto < Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:08 PM To: Gomez, Pedro <PGomez@santa-ana.org>; Pezeshkpour, Ali <APezeshkpour@santa-ana.org> Cc: Andrea Maloney < Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project Hi Pedro, Can you please make sure this gets in the record for the hearing tomorrow. Thanks! Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ed McCoy < Date: October 2, 2023 at 2:59:10 PM PDT To: Pam Sapetto < , Andrea Maloney < Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project Please make sure this gets into the Admin. Record. View important disclosures and information about our e-mail policies here. CA DRGI td(1188945E, CA DRC fW21115a42, Licerun fQ02I2-FFN 0I1.18000 From: Y.H. Salem MD < Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:58 PM To: Ed McCoy < Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Viridiana Perez < Date: October 2, 2023 at 2:51:35 PM PDT To: "Y.H. Salem MD" < Subject: Re: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project Thank you, Viri Perez Assistant Manager Y.H Salem MD, Inc. General & Vascular Surgery PEI This communication (and/or accompanying attachments') may contain confidential healthcare information belonging to the sender which is protected by physician -patient privilege or rights of staff committee confidentiality as provided by the state and federal law. Nothing contained in this communication and any attachments thereto is intended to waive any privileges or rights of confidentiality. The information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone, destroy any electronic copies, and arrange to return any hardcopies to the sender. From: Y.H. Salem MD < Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:46 PM To: Viridiana Perez < Subject: Fwd: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ed McCoy < Date: Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 1:03 PM Subject: 4th & Cabrillo Park Dr Fairfield Project To: Hi Dr. Salem, Good speaking with you this morning. Attached is the draft support letter for your review. Feel free to modify it as you wish. Once you are comfortable with it, please sign and return to me via email. I will see that it is submitted to the City Council. Thanks, Ed 1:::::::d IMcCoy eirdoir Vce Il:::Iiresdeir�t II::;Feudopi neir�t ■ 5355 fairfieldresidential.com 0000 View important disclosures and information about our e-mail policies here. I fi.Dhi. OI8891-,(,. l DRE 02 HI',82 L m,w,c=20221IIN 0018000 September 27, 2023 Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pre Tem Jessie Lopez Councilmember Thai Viet Phan Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Phil Baccera Councilmember Jonathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza RE: October 3, 2023 Agenda Item #1 S Cabrillo Town Center Project Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I am the owner of an office building east of the proposed Fairfield Mixed Use development. I am providing this letter in support of the project and ask that you DENY the appeal. The proposed project will be a tremendous asset to the local community as it will provide needed housing for our employees as well as redevelop a very under utilized property. Over the past few years the homeless challenges have increased. We believe that the redevelopment of the property will deter homeless activities. The projects also provides public open spaces and opportunities for retail that can service the local workforce and residents. Thank you for your consideration and again, please DENY the appeal of this much needed project. Sincerely, Dr. Yasser Salem Alcala, Abigail From: Steven Thong < Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 1:38 PM To: eComment; Gomez, Pedro Cc: Mitchell Tsai; Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney at Law, P.C.; Talia Nimmer Subject: SWMSRCC - [City of Santa Ana, Cabrillo Town Center Mixed -Use] - Comment Letter Attachments: 20231003_SWMSRCC_CabrilloTown_CCCMT_Complete.pdf Good afternoon, Please see the attached Comment Letter for the City of Santa Ana's October 3, 2023 City Council meeting regarding the appeal hearing of the Cabrillo Town Center Project. Additionally, please confirm receipt of this email and its attachment. Best, Steven Steven Thong Paralegal Mitchell M. Tsai, Law Firm Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: ( Fax: ( Email: Website: httPS: Lwww.mitchtsailaw.Com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-inail transmission, and anv documents, files or previous e-mail messages accomm panying it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copping, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacv Act. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Steven r)nutchtsailaw.coni or by telephone at (626) 314-3821 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank von. L% P: (626) 314-3821 139 South Hudson Avenue F: (626) 389-5414 Mitchell M. Tsai Suite 200 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Law Firm Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL October 3, 2023 City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Centre Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 Em: eComment cr,santa-ana.org RE: Agenda Item No. 18: Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable Councilmembers, On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters ("Southwest Mountain States Carpenters" or "SWMSRCC"), my Office is submitting these comments to the City of Santa Ana ("City") regarding the Cabrillo Town Center project ("Project") appeal our office submitted challenging the Planning Commission's April 24, 2023 approval of the Project. The Project includes the demolition of four commercial office buildings on four separate legal parcels in order to facilitate construction of a mixed -use development. The development would consist of two integrated parcels. Parcel 1 will consist of a five- story wrap building with 14,900 square feet of live/work space (19 live/work units), 5,800 square feet of leasable commercial space, 6,100 square feet of leasable office space, 449 residential rental units, 898 parking spaces, and 68,167 square feet of open space and amenities. Parcel 2 will consist of eight 3-story townhome buildings containing a total of 58 residential for sale units, 127 parking spaces, and 18,938 square feet of open space and amenities. In addition, the project as a whole will provide a total of 47,810 square feet (1.10 acres) of publicly accessible open space. The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 90,000 union carpenters in 12 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of SWMSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts. City of Santa Ana — Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal October 3, 2023 Page 2of5 The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the environmental assessment for the Project prior to approval of the Project. (See Citi.Zens for Clean Energy v City of l�oodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 [finding that any party who has objected to the project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties].) As previously noted by SWMSRCC, the City must prepare a subsequent environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the Project can be understood and weighed. (Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80.) The EIR requirement "is the heart of CEQA." (CEQA Guidelines, � 15003(a).) The City contends that no subsequent EIR is necessary pursuant to sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines because the Project is within the scope of the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone EIR ("Metro EIR") and because there are no new circumstances, information, or mitigation measures which have come to light since the certification of the Metro EIR in 2007. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 6.) However, such assertion fails because the Metro EIR failed to adequately consider the Project's impacts and feasible measures, necessitating preparation of a subsequent EIR for the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, 15162(a) [requiring a subsequent EIR when there is "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" such as "[m]itigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment"].) i. Transportation Impacts There is no dispute that the Metro EIR relied on outdated transportation methodology since the Metro EIR "relies on an LOS analysis, not a VMT analysis, to analyze... transportation impacts." (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 7.) Nevertheless, the City asserts that no further analysis is required because (1) the Project is within the scope of Metro EIR transportation analysis; and (2) because the City prepared a VMT Screening Assessment Memorandum ("Memo") for the Project which concluded that the Project was screened from preparing a complete VMT analysis. (Id. at pp. 6-8.) Both contentions fail. City of Santa Ana — Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal October 3, 2023 Page 3of5 First, the Project is not within the scope of the Metro EIR's assessed transportation impacts because the Metro EIR point blanket states that "specific development proposals made in the Overlay Zone would be subject to separate environmental clearance/review." (Metro EIR at 3-17.) On these grounds alone, a subsequent EIR which assesses and quantifies the Project's VMT impacts and feasible mitigation measures must be prepared, especially when taking into account that the Metro EIR found significant and unavoidable transportation impacts. (Metro EIR at 4.12-54.) Moreover, as noted by transportation expert Norm Marshall, new data and mitigation measures have come to light since the certification of the Metro EIR. (August 3, 2023 Letter from Norm Marshall to Talia Nimmer ["Marshall Letter"] [attached hereto as Exhibit A] at p. 5 ["climate science has evolved and GHG reduction practices have advanced in sophistication. New priorities have also arisen, such as strengthening climate resilience and infusing health and equity into integrated planning efforts."] In fact, since the certification of the Metro EIR in 2007, the City itself has changed its metric for assessing transportation impacts and has also provided further guidance on transportation mitigation measures and VMT analysis screening. (Marshall Letter at pp. 2; 5 [noting that the City's guidelines provide that land use projects can only be screened from complete VMT analysis under certain circumstances and that VMT- reduction measures must be implemented in certain circumstances.) Such new methodology, guidance, and mitigation measures constitute new information because the Metro EIR failed to analyze whether the Project falls within any of the screened categories or requires new VMT mitigation measures, further necessitating a subsequent EIR. Second, the City's argument that no subsequent EIR is necessary due to the preparation and findings in the Memo fails. Critically, such contention is contrary to the CEQA's requirement that a subsequent EIR be prepared upon the existence of new information and mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, � 15162(a). However, even assuming arguendo that such contention was consistent with the City's CEQA requirements, such assertion still fails because the Memo is inconsistent with the City's own Guidelines, which identify the Project location as exempt from VMT screening. (Marshall Letter at 2-5.) The City's assertion that no subsequent EIR and VMT analysis is required for the Project cannot stand. City of Santa Ana — Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal October 3, 2023 Page 4of5 ii. Greenhouse Gas ("GHG') Impacts The Staff Report concedes that "[t]he topic of GHG emissions impacts was not... included in the [Metro] EIR's analysis" whatsoever. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 8.) Still, the City argues that no subsequent EIR is needed because "a detailed analysis of the Project's GHG emissions impacts is included in Exhibit 9 and 9D of [the Staff Report]". (Id.) As with the City's transportation argument, however, its assertion that no subsequent EIR is necessary to quantify and mitigate the Project's GHG impacts is unfounded and contrary to CEQA since the existence of GHG impacts and mitigation measures, which the Metro EIR failed to analyze, constitutes new information of substantial importance. Accordingly, the City must also prepare a subsequent EIR to study the Project's GHG impacts and feasible mitigation measures. iii. Noise Impacts As the Staff Report concedes, "the [Metro] EIR analyzed potential noise impacts at 15 sensitive receptors", none of which were the Lake Dianne Apartments. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 15 [referring to Metro EIR at 4.9-7].) Crucially, as noted by noise expert Steve Rogers, unlike the Lake Dianne Apartments, the sensitive receptors which the Metro EIR did analyze "are almost all on busy streets or close to freeways, and therefore do not represent quieter locations that are set back and/or shielded from major traffic routes". Qune 29, 2023 Letter from Steve Rogers to Talia Nimmer ("Rogers Letter") (attached hereto as Exhibit B) at p. 2.) Thus, the Staff Report's assertion that "the potential impacts to the Lake Dianne Apartments are within the scope of those analyzed by the [Metro] EIR" fails and a subsequent EIR must be prepared in light of the newly identified and dissimilar sensitive receptor. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 16.) Moreover, SWMSRCC pointed out that although the Project "would include a significant amount of active and passive open space and outdoor amenities, including a 7,500 square -foot roof terrace, which would accommodate uses such as outdoor dining, game terrace, and view deck", the Metro EIR did "not consider the potential for operational noise impacts associated with the type of outdoor amenities proposed for the [P]roject." (Rogers Letter at p. 5 [referring to Metro EIR at 4.9-1 — 4.9-28.) Yet, in response to such concern, the Staff Report, while simultaneously conceding that the Metro EIR did not analyze such aspect, implies that the lack of such analysis is harmless because "Table 9 in Exhibit 9F [of the Staff Report] demonstrates that Project operation, including noise associated with outdoor and recreational uses, City of Santa Ana — Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal October 3, 2023 Page 5of5 would not increase ambient noise levels". (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 21.) However, the City's assertion is contrary to CEQA since the very existence of potential outdoor impacts and mitigation measures, which the Metro EIR failed to analyze, constitutes new information of substantial importance. iv. Land Use Impacts Finally, a subsequent EIR is necessary because there is a colorful argument that the Project is contrary to the General Plan since, as the City admits, the Project would be solely "a market -rate residential development with no units dedicated to affordable housing for lower -income residents." (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 12.) Although the City contends that the Project, and its lack of any affordable housing units, is still consistent with the General Plan because "it would increase the housing stock of market -rate and affordable housing units through payment of an in -lieu fee" (id.), such assertion should be studied and quantified in an EIR rather than just accepted as true given California's ongoing homeless problem and housing crisis. In sum, SMSWRCC respectfully requests that the City uphold its appeal and require a subsequent EIR for the Project in order for the Project to be CEQA compliant and to provide both the City and the public with a meaningful understanding of the Project's environmental impacts. If the City has any questions, feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, 110 Talia Nimmer Attorneys for Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters EXHIBIT A 794 Sawnee Bean Road Thetford Center VT 05075 Norman Marshall, President (802)356-2969 nmarshall@smartmobility.com August 3, 2023 Talia Nimmer Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law 139 South Hudson Avenue Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Comments on the Cabrillo Town Center Project Dear Ms. Nimmer, I have reviewed vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") impacts of the proposed 20 Civic Center Plaza project in Santa Ana as described in the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 24, 2023, and the attached Revised Traffic Circulation Analysis, dated November 18, 2022. 1 make the following findings: 1) SB 743 requires that vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") impacts be analyzed under CEQA. These impacts have not been analyzed for the proposed project. 2) The City of Santa Ana has adopted a Resolution and Guidelines for evaluating project VMT impacts that include three categories of projects that are screened from complete analysis. The proposed project does not satisfy any of these screens. As the project fails to satisfy any of the City's three VMT screens, the City's Resolution requires a VMT analysis with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model ("OCTAM"). This OCTAM analysis is required for this project and has not been done. 3) If the OCTAM analysis results in a significant VMT impact, the Guidelines require mitigation to "15% below the existing Countywide VMT/SP" [Service Population]. 4) The proposed project is in an auto -oriented, VMT-inefficient part of the City of Santa Ana, and the project's location also will largely preclude significant mitigation of its VMT impacts. One of the VMT-reduction measures recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), unbundling residential parking costs and rents, is prohibited by the City of Santa Ana. The Applicant Fails to Quantify the Project's VIVIT Impacts As Required SB 743 requires that vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") impacts be analyzed under CEQA. These impacts have not been analyzed for the proposed project. The City of Santa Ana has adopted Resolution No. 2019-049 entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Ana Adopting "Vehicle Miles Traveled" Thresholds of Significance for purposes of Analyzing Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines attached to the Resolution states: The City of Santa Ana has identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for transportation impact analysis in all traffic studies in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). The City of Santa Ana has prepared these Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines for assessing potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects, General Plan Amendments, and changes to the zoning in the City. For land use projects (including this proposed project), the Resolution identifies three categories where projects can be screened from more complete VMT analysis: • Transit Priority Area (TPA), • Low VMT area, • Project type. Figure 1 reproduces the vicinity map from the Revised Traffic Circulation Analysis. Figure 1: Vicinity Map 01 'i% rip I �Ixr III FDG' RE 1- 1 2 The City's Guidelines includes maps of the first two screening categories, and a map that combines them — preproduced here as Figure 2. Figure 2: Santa Ana Development Areas that Cannot Be Screened [re VMT] T'MINT SIP' not an kpast 1L-*Iaw Courty Average ,and is not i invs ii e of 'Tranrvt PrioOtty Auer Santa Ana Development Ara that Cannot Screened 3 Figure 3 reproduces a portion of Figure 2 with increased contrast to show the street grid, along with the approximate location of the proposed project. The project is within the area that "cannot be screened." Figure 3: Approximate Project Location Shown to Be in Area that "Cannot Be Screened" RT 55 The third screening criteria includes three types of projects that are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact including: • Local serving retail projects of less than 50,000 square feet, • Neighborhood schools, and • Projects that generate less than 110 daily trips. 4 The proposed project satisfies none of these categories. It is predominantly a housing project, i.e., not local -serving retail or a school. The Revised Traffic Circulation Analysis estimates that the project would generate 2,751 daily trips after an adjustment for internal capture, and 875 more daily trips than the existing land use on the project site, i.e., much more than 110 daily trips. (Table 5-1, p. 19) As the project fails to satisfy any of the City's three VMT screens, the City's Resolution requires a VMT analysis with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model ("OCTAM"). This OCTAM analysis is required for this project and has not been done. A Significant VMT Impact Must Be Mitigated The Resolution states: A Significant impact would occur if the project causes total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions. This analysis should be performed using the 'project effect' method. The Guidelines attached to the Resolution state: Once a significant impact is identified, the project's VMT per capita should be mitigated to be at or less than 15% below the existing Countywide VMT/SP. Mitigation should consist of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with Chapter 7 of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) and approved by the City's Traffic Engineering Division. Since the City's Guidelines were adopted, CAPCOA has updated its guidance with the publication of its Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Final Draft, December 2021). This newer publication states: The Handbook builds on CAPCOA's previous efforts to provide accurate and reliable quantification measures. In 2010, CAPCOA published Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emissions Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (hereafter referred to as the "2010 Handbook"). Since that time, climate science has evolved and GHG reduction practices have advanced in sophistication. New priorities have also arisen, such as strengthening climate resilience and infusing health and equity into integrated planning efforts. Therefore, CAPCOA decided it was time to develop an updated and expanded resource to provide the latest data and methods to quantify GHG emissions reductions, climate change vulnerability reductions, and equity improvements in a single resource: The Handbook. (p. 2-3) The City's VMT Guidelines are best followed by applying the updated CALCOA Handbook. Achieving significant VMT mitigation at this project site may be impossible. The Handbook includes 14 quantified VMT reduction measures at the Project/Site scale (p. 63). 9 of the 14 measures involve trip reduction projects that are not applicable to the predominantly residential character of the proposed project. The other 5 measures include 3 land use measures and 2 parking measures. 5 The land use measures are applicable to residential development include: • T-1 Increase Residential Density, • T-3 Provide Transit -Oriented Development, and • T-4 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing. The proposed project is denser than the surrounding area (Measure T-1), and density is associated with lower VMT. However, the Handbook states: "This measure is best quantified when applied to larger developments and developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding area due to the underlying research being founded in data from the neighborhood." (p. 70) The VMT benefits of density are highly correlated with being in walkable mixed -use neighborhoods. As shown in Figure 4, the proposed project is not within a higher -density mixed use neighborhood. There appears to be no housing of similar density in the neighborhood today. A large proportion of the land use is devoted to autos including freeways, wide streets, and surface parking. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, 4t" Street is a 6-lane divided roadway posted at 40 mph and Cabrillo Park Drive is a four -lane, divided roadway posted at 35 mph (Revised Traffic Circulation Analysis, p. 8). Therefore, the VMT- reduction benefits of density in this location are uncertain. Figure 4: Project Vicinity The proposed project is not a transit -oriented development (TOD) (Measure T-3). The Handbook states: "TOD refers to projects built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities." As shown in Figure 5, although most of the City of Santa Ana is within Transit Priority Areas (within a half mile of a Metrolink Station and/or a High -Quality Bus Stop), but the proposed project is not. N. Figure 5: Santa Ana Transit Priority Areas (Reproduced from the City's Guidelines) DC Metrolink RaH Half We lBuifeir ario,uind MetrohnIk Stabor IHMI ( it ariounid Hugh Owality B,us Stops Santa Ana 'Transit Priori.ty.Areas 7 The proposed project does not integrate affordable and below market rate housing (Measure T-4). Instead of including affordable housing in the project, the "applicant has selected the option to pay in - lieu fees." (Staff Letter, p. 4-6) The parking VMT-reduction measures documented in the Handbook include: • T-15 Limit Residential Parking Supply, and • T-16 Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost, and Both parking measures encourage residents to shift trips from autos to walking, biking, and transit. The Handbook states: Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. (Measure T-15) On the assumption that parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces, this measure results in decreased vehicle ownership and, therefore, a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions. (Measure T-16) The Handbook cautions that these measures may not work well in auto -oriented areas like the area where the proposed project is sited. The Handbook states: When limiting parking supply, a best practice is to do so at sites that are located near high quality alternative modes of travel (such as a rail station, frequent bus line, or in a higher density area with multiple walkable locations nearby). (Measure T-15) Measure T-16, unbundling residential parking costs, is explicitly prohibited by the City of Santa Ana. Its document, Off -Street Parking Requirements, states: No owner or agent of any owner of multiple -family residential property shall impose any charge on any resident for the privilege of parking in the off street parking spaces on such property which is separate and distinct from the rent charged to such resident for such resident's dwelling unit.' The proposed project is in an auto -oriented, VMT-inefficient part of the City of Santa Ana, and the project's location also will largely preclude significant mitigation of its VMT impacts. Sincerely, Norman L. Marshall ' https:��stora�e,00leapis,corn�proudcity�santaanaca�uploads�2f�22�f�3�®ff-StreetParkinll-17,pdf, p. 5 of 17. P Resume NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT nmarshallf@smartmobilitv.com EDUCATION: Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (32 Years, 18 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi -modal transportation with land use and community needs. Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) —the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments. Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment — Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel. Vermont Agency of Transportation -Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures. California Air Resources Board — Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity -based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today. Climate Plan (California statewide) —Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives. Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) — led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO's long-range transportation plan update. Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization — Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on -road and off -road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment. Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced I7 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts. Developed multi -class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies. Municipal Planning City of Grand Rapids — Michigan Street Corridor — developed peak period subarea model including non - motorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City's Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non -motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed -use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled. City of Dublin (Columbus region) — Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non - motorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed -use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center. City of Portland, Maine — Implemented model improvements that better account for non -motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies. City of Honolulu — Kaka'ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) — applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture. City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan — Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management. Transit Planning Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 — evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system -wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding. Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision — analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit -oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT. Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) — analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately -developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on 1-95 and 1-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in -line stations, and hybrid). Roadway Corridor Planning 1-30 Little Rock Arkansas — Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model 1-30 alternatives. Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model. 10 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) — In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway. Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) — Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the 1-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list) DTA Love: Co -leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018. Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities. Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. Pre -Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference. A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS Associate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Member and Co -Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) 11 EXHIBIT B Silva. IlRogers Acanfia, June 29, 2023 Talia Nimmer Mitchel M. Tsai, Attorney at Law Pasadena CA 91101 : Subject: Cabrillo Town Center Project, Santa Ana Review of Environmental Noise Analysis Dear Talia: We have completed a review of environmental noise analysis that supported the City Planning Commission staff recommendation to approve of the Site Plan Review and Tentative Tract Map for the Cabrillo Town Center project in Santa Ana. Here are our findings: OVERVIEW The project site is within the bounds of the Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana. • In its Site Plan Review and Tentative Tract Map evaluation, the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission has relied on the findings and recommendations of the MEMU Environmental Impact Report dated March 2007 and Supplemental Impact Report dated August 2018. • The closing paragraph on page 12 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 24, 2023 includes this statement: "The previously prepared 2007 EIR and 2018 SEIR adequately described the project's environmental setting, significant impacts and alternatives, and mitigation measures related to each impact. " We disagree. In our opinion, there are aspects of the noise analysis in the MEMU EIR/SEIR that do not adequately describe the environmental setting of the Cabrillo Town Center project. We also find that the evaluation of noise impacts in the MEMU EIR/SEIR does not capture the full scope of likely noise sources associated with a large mixed -use project and is based on thresholds of significance that overlook key local regulations. • Additional study— including field work— is required to adequately evaluate the potential noise impacts of the Cabrillo Town Center project and determine additional mitigation measures/features necessary to adequately protect neighboring residential uses. AMBIENT NOISE BASELINE, OVERLOOKED SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Section 4.9 of the MEMU EIR reports results of a series of noise measurements made at a total of 15 monitoring locations in and around the MEMU area, as shown in Figure 4.9-1 and described in table 4.9-3. These measurements do not adequately characterize the baseline noise condition at sensitive receivers around the project site because: - They are short-term (15-minute), daytime readings only and do not therefore capture the quieter evening and nighttime periods, when any noise impacts from the project will be more disruptive to nearby receivers. 2355 Westwood boua evoacl, Swilo 411 Ios Angea es, CA90064 fel: 310 234 0939 rogersoroustics.roan ("„ hI Mo Town C:^ nt � 13A of vti, Saantis. Ana Its v« w of I nv�mnm ntal NoNe A naly[�N Page 2 of b .kdfie 29, 2023 They are insufficient to determine 24-hour weighted average noise metrics, such as Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the basis of the noise standards in the City of Santa Ana General Plan. The selected monitoring locations do not represent noise conditions on the Lake Dianne Apartments complex, which is located immediately northeast of the project site. The apartments here represent the closest sensitive receivers to the sources of noise associated with the project. The monitoring locations selected for the baseline noise evaluation are almost all on busy streets or close to freeways, which do not represent quieter locations that are set back and/or shielded from major traffic routes — such as the apartments on the Lake Dianne property. • In Table 4.9-4, the MEMU EIR provides "reference" CNEL values for an extensive list of road segments around the Overlay Zone area, which have been calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model. However, these projected noise levels are for hypothetical off -site receivers located very close to busy streets (50-ft from the centerline) and do not help characterize ambient noise conditions for receivers further away from major traffic routes and/or shielded by intervening structures THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The noise impact assessment for the MEMU was based on thresholds of significance defined on page 4.9-14 of the EIR. • As we would expect, reference is made to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines; however, the significance thresholds themselves are problematic for the following reasons: - Temporary/Periodic Impacts are Excluded CEQA Guidelines require that both temporary/periodic and permanent noise impacts be identified and addressed. However, the thresholds of significance proposed in the MEMU EIR would apply to operational (permanent) noise impacts only. - Increase of less than 3 dBA The preparers propose that any increase in noise, whether temporary or long-term, should be considered insignificant if it is less than 3 dBA. While it is true that a noise increase of 3 dBA would not be discernable to most people, it is also possible that a 3 dBA increase could make the difference between complying with local noise regulations (City of Santa Ana Municipal Code and General Plan) and not. In other words, there may be situations where a 3 dBA increase in noise level would — according to the CEQA Guidelines, as quoted on page 4.9-14 of the EIR — constitute a "significant adverse impact". - Increase of less than 3 dBA. more than 5 dBA The MEMU EIR suggests that a noise level increase of more than 3 dBA but less than 5 dBA should be considered less than significant so long as the CNEL at sensitive land uses, including residential uses, is below 65. However, it would be quite possible for noise from the project to exceed the allowed limits according to the Santa Ana Municipal Code while remaining well below the proposed CNEL 65 significance threshold. For example, the nighttime noise limit in the Municipal Code for continuous noise — such as air- conditioning — is 50 dBA (SAMC Section 18-312), for receivers where the ambient (nighttime) noise level is less than 50 dBA, which is likely the case for much of the Lake Dianne property. In (C„ hI Mo Town C:^ nt � 13A of vti, Saantis. Ana Rev«ew of l nv�mnmental NoNe A naly[�N Page 3 of b .kdfie 29, 2023 this scenario, a continuous noise source that runs 24-hours per day and produces 53 dBA on the neighboring property would be out of compliance with the Municipal Code, but would result in a CNEL of less than 60. Increase of 5 dBA or More For noise level increases of 5 dBA or more, two different significance thresholds are presented on page 4.9-1 of the MEMU EIR. One states simply that noise level increases of 5 dBA or more should be considered significant, while the other states that noise level increases of 5 dBA or more should only be considered significant if the resulting CNEL is 65 or higher. We agree that a noise increase of 5 dBA or more caused by the Cabrillo Town Center project should be considered significant. We do not agree than a 5 dBA noise level increase is only significant if it also results in a CNEL of 65 or higher. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS In the description of Impact 4.9-1 on page 4.9-15, the MEMU EIR states that the impact of noise due to construction in the overlay zone could be substantial, even with mitigation, but that these impacts should be considered less -than -significant because the noise of construction is temporary and exempt from the noise limits in the Santa Ana Municipal Code (construction is one of the exemptions listed in SAMC Section 18-314). We agree that construction is temporary (even if a large project such as Cabrillo Town Center would take years to build) and acknowledge the construction noise exemption in the Municipal Code. Nonetheless, the characterization of construction noise impacts as less than significant is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines as they are stated elsewhere in the MEMU EIR. According to the fourth bullet point on page 4.9-14, implementation of the project may result in a significant adverse impact on noise if the project would: - Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CONSTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION On pages 4.9-17 and -18, the MEMU EIR provides a list of noise and vibration mitigation measures prescribed for construction activities within the overlay zone. Beyond reiteration of the construction hours restrictions in the Santa Ana Municipal Code (no construction after 8PM or before 7AM Monday — Saturday, no construction on Sundays or Federal holidays), these mitigations are often general/vague in nature and would likely be difficult or impossible to enforce in practice. • For example, MM-OZ 4.9-2 includes requirements to: - "Place noise -generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible - Schedule high noise -producing activities between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to minimize disruption on sensitive uses - Implement noise attenuation measures, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources" Use of the phrase "where feasible" provides a workaround, allowing the construction crew to locate equipment and stage materials as close as they see fit to sensitive neighbors. Similarly, there is no ("„ hI Mo Town C:^ nt � 13A of vti, Saantis. Ana Its v« w of I nv�mnm ntal NoNe A naly[�N Page 4 of b .kdfie 29, 2023 definition of the "high noise -producing activities," which should cease at 5PM, or the amount of reduction required to be achieved by noise barriers/blankets around equipment. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS HVAC Equipment Noise The MEMU EIR includes an analysis of HVAC noise associated with new developments in the overlay zone, starting on page 4.9-19. The calculation starts with the assumption that HVAC systems "can result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA, Leq at 50 feet from the equipment', then reasons that shielding around rooftop equipment might typically be expected to provide 15 dBA of noise reduction, resulting in a net noise level at 50-feet of 50 dBA. For equipment that runs 24- hours per day, the preparers point out that the relationship between the Leq noise level and the CNEL is 6.7 dBA, so that an Leq of 50 dBA at 50-feet would equate to a CNEL of 57. And since 57 CNEL falls below the proposed 65 CNEL significance threshold, the EIR concludes that HVAC noise is less than significant. • We see two problems with this calculation and less -than -significant conclusion: - Firstly, the estimate of HVAC unit noise seems too low for a mixed -use project that will likely have hundreds of HVAC units operating simultaneously. This is because the combined effect of multiple similar noise sources grouped together is calculated from the equation: Total Noise Level = Noise Level for Single Source x 10*LOG10 (Number of Sources) So, while we would expect that a single AC unit, serving a single apartment could produce a noise level of approximately 55 dBA at 50-feet, a grouping of 100 units (for example serving one section of the building) would have a total noise level of 55 + 10*LOG10 (100) = 75 dBA at 50- feet. Larger, commercial -grade equipment associated with the commercial and office portions of the project as well as ventilation fans for the parking structure (if required) would likely produce more noise than residential AC units, further adding to the noise sum for surrounding receivers. It is therefore likely that the analysis in the MEMU EIR substantially underestimates the total HVAC noise impact of the project. The second problem with the HVAC noise analysis in the MEMU EIR is that (like the proposed thresholds of significance) it overlooks the noise limits in the Santa Ana Municipal Code. The SAMC requires that noise from continuous sources — such as HVAC equipment — be limited to 50 dBA at night, unless the ambient noise level on the receiving property is greater than 50 dBA, in which case the ambient noise level becomes the noise limit. We expect that nighttime ambient noise levels on much of the Lake Dianne property are less than 50 dBA, so that the allowable limit for the combined noise of all HVAC equipment associated with the project is 50 dBA, not CNEL 65 as the MEMU EIR suggests. • For these reasons, we believe that the analysis presented in the MEMU EIR does not adequately demonstrate that HVAC noise associated with the Cabrillo Town Center project will be less than significant. Outdoor Amenities • The Cabrillo Town Center project would include a significant amount of active and passive open space and outdoor amenities, including a 7,500 square -foot roof terrace, which would accommodate uses such as outdoor dining, game terrace, and view deck. ("„ hI Mo Town C:^ nt � 13A of vti, Saantis. Ana Its v« w of I nv�mnm ntal NoNe A naly[�N Page 1:3 of b .kdfie 29, 2023 • According to the Planning Commission staff report, the roof terrace would be equipped with synthetic turf (possibly for sports) a media wall and festival lighting, suggesting nighttime use. The analysis in Section 4.9 of the MEMU EIR does not consider the potential for operational noise impacts associated with the type of outdoor amenities proposed for the project and does not, therefore, demonstrate that any such impact is less than significant. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS We find that the MEMU EIR/SEIR does not adequately describe the environmental noise setting, nor does it properly evaluate the noise impacts of the Cabrillo Town Center project. In addition, the noise mitigation measures included in the MEMU EIR need to be revised and supplemented to better address project impacts. We therefore recommend that the MEMU EIR/SEIR be supplemented with revised/additional project -specific environmental noise analysis and documentation as follows: Sensitive Receivers & Baseline Ambient Noise Levels Recognize the residential uses within the Lake Dianne Apartments complex — which are the closest sensitive receivers to the project site — and include this area in the noise impact analysis and baseline ambient noise measurements. Conduct 24-hour baseline noise measurements at locations selected to represent baseline ambient noise conditions at all sensitive receivers around the project site. The baseline noise survey should not be limited to locations on busy streets and should accurately reflect conditions at sensitive uses (such as those in the southwest quadrant of the Lake Dianne Apartments property) that are set back and/or shielded from traffic noise sources. Continuous noise monitoring is preferred. However, if continuous monitoring is not feasible at any of the receiver locations, then — at a minimum — the baseline should be established by means of 15- minute readings at each of the following three timeframes: 9AM — 5PM (daytime), 8PM — 10PM (evening) and 1AM — 3AM (nighttime). Thresholds of Significance • Revise the thresholds of significance in the MEMU EIR to include temporary impacts and for consistency with the noise limits in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, as follows: Any temporary or permanent noise impact resulting from the project shall be considered significant if either one of the following conditions apply: (1) The project results in noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code or General Plan. (2) The project results in a noise level increase of 5 deA or more. Construction Noise Impacts & Mitigation • Provide a project -specific list of the types of equipment to be used during the various phases of demolition and construction. For each phase and equipment type, identify source noise levels (FHWA reference values) as well as the number of pieces to be employed in that phase. • If the project will deliberately exclude any particularly noisy construction equipment/activities (such as pile -driving) then the project documentation must include a clear statement to this effect. • Revise the construction noise analysis to reflect the total impact of all proposed equipment operating together, rather than a single piece of equipment operating in isolation. ("„ hI Mar Town C:^ nt � 13A of vti, Santa Ana .kdfie 29, 2023 Page b of b Revise/strengthen mitigation measure MM-OZ 4.9-2, so that bullet points 3 through 6 read as follows: - Place noise -generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses. - Restrict any activities that result in noise levels in excess of the Thresholds of Significance to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM to minimize disruption of sensitive uses. - Implement noise barriers or noise blankets around construction equipment to achieve a minimum noise level reduction of 15 deA. - Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment. Operational Noise Impacts & Mitigation • Revise the operational noise impact analysis to reflect the combined all of the equipment in the project HVAC system. • Include an evaluation of project design features that would be incorporated into the building design to attenuate HVAC noise — such as equipment screens, duct silencers, etc. • The revised analysis must adequately demonstrate that HVAC noise from the project will be controlled to the point where it: (a) complies with the noise standards in the SAMC, and (b) limits noise level increases at surrounding sensitive uses to less than 5 dBA. • Include the outdoor amenities in the operational noise impact analysis. The analysis should include realistic evaluation of crowd noise, sports/games, amplified sound, AV systems, etc. and should recognize the more stringent standards in the SAMC that apply to impact noise (balls bouncing) speech and music. • Supplement the operational noise mitigation measures as necessary to address noise from outdoor amenities. Mitigation measures may include: limiting hours of use and/or occupancy of outdoor areas, additional noise shielding/screening features in the project design, limiting playback levels for outdoor amplified sound systems, etc. Yours sincerely, Steve Rogers Acoustics, LLC St Ro ers Prince I y \tsal\ealbrlllo loon corlor\roporl 1. Hall, Jennifer From: Stephanie DeHerrera <Stephanie@rpnllp.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:36 PM To: eComment Cc: Hall, Jennifer; Gomez, Pedro Subject: RE: The Cabrillo Town Center Project (SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03) Attachments: Cabrillo Town Center Responses to Comments SAFER (10.3.23).pdf Please find the attached final Applicant response to the SAFER Letter dated October 2, 2023. We sent a previous version that was missing an attachment. Please include this one in the record (time stamp approximately 3:35 pm). Thank you again, and we apologize for the flurry of emails. Stephanie DeHerrera Associate 11 R A N D] PASTER I NELSON Direct: 213-557-7226 Cell: 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071 stg.phgnieC2_r.gnllp.com www.rDnilD.Com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail messag is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney -client communication and/or include attorney work product privileged material, and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. From: Stephanie DeHerrera Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:33 PM To: 'eComment@santa-ana.org' <eComment@santa-ana.org> Cc:'Jhall@santa-ana.org' <Jhall@santa-ana.org>; PGomez@santa-ana.org Subject: FW: The Cabrillo Town Center Project (SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03) I apologize, but our previous email had a typo. Please find attached. Stephanie DeHerrera Associate III! R A iN J PASI } R R F1_SON Direct: 213-557-7226 Cell: 714- W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071 stg.phgnie(2_E.pnllp.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail messag is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney -client communication and/or include attorney work product privileged material, and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. From: Stephanie DeHerrera Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:31 PM To: c mmentC�_s nth.- Cc: Dave Rand <Dav(rpnllp com>;aaz(snt-nsaarg Subject: The Cabrillo Town Center Project (SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03) Good afternoon, Please find the attached response from Applicant to SAFER Comment Letter dated October 2, 2023 re The Cabrillo Town Center Project (Site Plan Review No. 2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. 2023-03). Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie DeHerrera Associate II R A N 'D I PAS ER I NELSON Direct: 213-557-7226 Cell: 714- W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071 stg.phgnie(2_E.pnlIp.com www.rDnllD.COM Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail messag is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney -client communication and/or include attorney work product privileged material, and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 633 West Fifth Street I 64th Floor I III Los Angeles, CA 90071 III{{{ 213.557.7222 R A N D I PASTER I NELSON www.rpnllp.com Dave Rand 213.557.7224 Dave@rpnllp.com October 3, 2023 VIA EMAIL City Council Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk 20 Civic Centre Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 Comment@santa-ana.org Jhall@santa-ana.org Re: Response to SAFER Comment Letter dated October 2, 2023 re The Cabrillo Town Center Project (Site Plan Review No. 2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. 2023-03) Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Council Members: We represent Fairfield Realty, LLC in conjunction with its proposal to construct a new mixed -use development ("Project") at 1901 and 1971 East Fourth Street and 515 and 525 North Cabrillo Park Drive ("Site") in the City of Santa Ana ("City"). Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") submitted a letter dated October 2, 2023 ("SAFER Letter") regarding the Project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The SAFER Letter specifically alleges that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is required to analyze and mitigate the Project's potentially significant impacts associated with indoor air quality, and recommends mitigation related to indoor air quality. Responses to the SAFER Letter have been prepared by CAJA Environmental Services, LLC. See Exhibit A. As discussed therein, the Project would comply with all applicable regulations designed to address indoor air quality and potential toxic materials, including but not limited to the California Green Building Standards Code ("CALGreen")1, which addresses chemical emissions from indoor building materials installed in new buildings, and CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, which applies to composite wood products sold and supplied in California.Z These measures assure that all building materials and furnishings manufactured, distributed, imported and used in new construction in California meet the maximum allowable concentrations that assure healthful indoor air quality. Therefore, the record demonstrates California Green Building Standard Code: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/building-decarbonization/building- standards-code, accessed August 2, 2022. 2 CARB, Composite Wood Products Airborne Toxic Control Measure: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/composite-wood- products-program, accessed August 2, 2022. City of Santa Monica City Council October 3, 2023 Page 2 with substantial evidence that the Project would not result in potentially significant indoor air quality impacts. As demonstrated herein, the SAFER Letter does not establish any evidence that the Project violates CEQA, and the Project's CEQA analysis provides substantial evidence that support the findings that the Project is consistent with the Metro East Mixed -Use ("MEMU") Overlay Zone and within the scope of the EIR prepared for the MEMU Overlay Zone. Sincerely, �QlfP "awd Dave Rand Partner of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP DR:smd Attachment Cc: Pedro Gomez, Senior Planner, PGomez@santa- ana.org EXHIBIT A dffCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 October 3, 2023 City Council c/o: City Clerk 20 Civic Centre Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 comment@santa-ana.org Re: Response to SAFER Comment Letter Dated October 2, 2023 To Whom It May Concern: CAJA Environmental Services, LLC (CAJA) has reviewed the letter submitted to the City of Los Angeles (City) by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) submitted a letter dated October 2, 2023 (SAFER Letter) regarding the Cabrillo Town Center Project. Responses to the primary comments in the SAFER Letter are attached to this memo. If you require any additional information or would like to discuss, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Kerrie Nicholson CAJA Environmental Services, LLC Attachments Response to Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Letter dated October 2, 2023 Response to Comment No. 1 It should be noted at the outset that the alleged impact of formaldehyde on the future residents of the Project is not relevant to CEQA. The Supreme Court's holding in California Building Industry Assn v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 found that CEQA does not require a project to evaluate the impact of the existing environment on future residents of the Project, unless the Project exacerbates the impact. There is no evidence that there is an existing formaldehyde issue at the Project site or that the Project could result in any exacerbation of any such issue. Mr. Offermann claims that the Project would expose residents and commercial employees of the Project to airborne cancer risks in excess of 10 per million due to formaldehyde emissions and that this would constitute a significant impact. In his letter, Mr. Offermann introduces the correlation between indoor formaldehyde concentrations and excess cancer cases by citing the results of the 2009 California New Home Study (CNHS), which he authored. Though this introduction has limited relevance to the comment's claims regarding the Project's alleged airborne cancer risk due to formaldehyde emissions, one statement merits a brief clarifying discussion. Mr. Offermann notes that in his CNHS study of "108 new homes in California," the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 pg/m3. "Therefore," he claims, "the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 pg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone." The wording of this statement comes close to suggesting that the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of a California home is 36 fag/m3. Whether this is the intended meaning or not, such a conclusion would not be supported by the results of Mr. Offermann's CNHS study, which was limited to single-family homes that were built between 2002 and 2004. The study itself refrains from inferring such a broad conclusion, and there is no evidence that such a narrowly tailored selection of study homes — specifically, detached single-family homes constructed over a three-year period nearly 20 years ago — should be broadly representative of statewide conditions. Mr. Offermann then engages in a series of inaccurate statements and unfounded speculation in his process of surmising the Project's future indoor formaldehyde concentration and the risk it may pose to future Project residents and employees. In this process, Mr. Offermann relies heavily on a 2020 paper by Singer et al.' that presents the methods and results of the Healthy Efficient New Gas Home (HENGH) study. Mr. Offermann is also credited as a co-author to this paper. The discussion below explains why each step in Mr. Offermann's process is variously misguided, erroneous, or unsupported by fact. Mr. Offermann begins by mischaracterizing critical details of the HENGH study, inaccurately stating that the study "found that median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had... median indoor concentrations of 22.4 fag/m3 (18.2 ppb)." This is incorrect: though the study did find that its 70 sample homes had a median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 18.2 ppb, the study offers no evidence, nor does it explicitly express or infer, that sampled homes were built with CARB Phase 2 ATCM materials. The HENGH study assessed 70 sample homes that were built between 2011 and 2017, but the final Phase 2 ATCM rules did not go into effect until January 2014. Thus, not all sampled homes were built after the final Phase 2 ATCM rules went into effect, and it is Singer, B.C., Chan, W.R., Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code - Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. Page 2 possible that some homes built after January 2014 were constructed of materials that were purchased prior to this deadline. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Offermann's statement, the HENGH study does not establish - nor could it establish - that median indoor formaldehyde concentrations in new homes built with CARB Phase 2 ATCM materials are 22.4 tag/m3 or 18.2 ppb. Next, Mr. Offermann further embellishes the results of the HENGH study by applying what he terms is a "correction" to the study's 22.4 tag/m3 (18.2 ppb) median indoor formaldehyde concentration finding, thereby resulting in a "true" median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 24.1 pg/m3. He states that "formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under - measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%." In the paper by Singer et al. that is cited by Mr. Offermann, the authors note that Offermann (this commenter) and Hodgson "have shown that sampling rates for... passive monitors start to drop sharply when air velocity falls below about 75 [centimeters per minute]." However, the study subsequently acknowledges other household research that reports how "such low air velocities were infrequent." The authors then reason that "it is possible that sampling rates could have been lower than the assumed standard values at some times in some homes," but concede that the HENGH study "did not measure velocities around the passive samplers" or "verify measured concentrations with pumped samples." Thus, by the study's own admission, there is no evidence that low air velocities were ever a factor during passive sampling of indoor formaldehyde levels. Contrary to Mr. Offermann's statement, the application of a 7.5% "correction" is not evident anywhere in the paper by Singer et al. Where the paper reports its findings, it reports the 18.2 ppb figure, which correlates with Mr. Offermann's original 22.4 tag/m3 figure - not his "corrected" 24.1 tag/m3 figure (See Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1 HENGH Study Median Formaldehyde ("HCHO") Concentrations Table 3. Time -averaged pollutant concentrations in California homes built 2011-2017 (HENGH, current study) and 2002-2005 (CNHS, Offermann, 2009). Location HCHO (pph) PM2.5 {µglm3} NO2 (pph) CO2 (PP-) Statistic HENGH CNHS' HENGH CNHS' HENGH CNHS' HENGH CNHS` Indoor N=68 N=105 N=67 N=28 N=66 N=29 N=69 N=107 Mean 19.8 18.2 13-28 35.0 29.3 11-70 7.5 4.8 1.6-16 13.4 10.5 6.0-31 5.8 4.5 1.1-12 5.2 1.6 1.4-12 620 608 481-770 610 564 405-990 Median iwh-90`h Outdoor N=66 N=39' N=67' N=11' N=65 N=114 No data No data Mean 2.2 L9 9.3, 10.5 7.9 5.4 2.1 Median 2.3 1.7 6.8, 9.7 9.7 3.6 1.5 Iwh-90'h 1.4-3.1 0.6-2.8 5.0-10 0.1-11 1.4-1.7 5.3-16.7 As indicated in the red box, Singer et al. reports that median formaldehyde concentrations in HENGH study homes were 18.2 ppb, which correlates with Mr. Offermann's original 22.4 pg/m3 concentration, not his "corrected" 24.1 pg/m3 figure. (Singer et al.) Page 3 Based on his "corrected" 24.1 pg/m3 figure, Mr. Offermann claims that "the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB-compliant composite wood products." This is despite the fact that the original 22.4 pg/m3 figure is based in part on sample homes that were built prior to CARB Phase 2 ATCM rules going into effect, and the "corrected" 24.1 pg/m3 utilized by Mr. Offermann has no evidentiary basis. Mr. Offermann expands on his analysis when discussing the alleged impact on the Project's future residents. He starts by stating that "residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g., 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year)." In other words, Mr. Offermann assumes that a Project resident will spend every hour of every day within their apartment. This is clearly an inaccurate assumption, and Mr. Offermann offers no evidence to support it, nor does he acknowledge that his assumption directly contradicts existing guidance offered by OEHHA regarding "fraction of time at home" or FAH.2 By ignoring this guidance, Mr. Offermann's continuous exposure assumptions for residential occupants are not tenable. Mr. Offermann then launches a flurry of speculation, claiming that because the Project "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 24.1 pg/m3." Mr. Offerman cites the paper by Singer et al. in support of this statement. As explained earlier, Singer et al. concedes a lack of evidence surrounding whether low air velocities were ever a factor during the HENGH study's passive sampling of indoor formaldehyde levels, and the paper's published findings report a 18.2 ppb figure which correlates with Mr. Offermann's non -"corrected" 22.4 pg/m3 figure. The application of a 7.5% "correction" that correlates with Mr. Offermann's 24.1 pg/m3 figure is not evident in the paper by Singer et al., and Mr. Offermann's citation referencing Singer et al. is therefore questionable. Furthermore, and as also explained earlier, the HENGH study addressed by Singer et al. sampled homes that were constructed several years prior to the full rollout of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde emission standards. Singer et al. neither explicitly states nor infers that sample homes were built with CARB Phase 2 compliant materials, nor does it suggest that its formaldehyde findings should be interpreted in the manner that Mr. Offermann has undertaken. Therefore, Mr. Offermann's reasoning that the Project would contain similar indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations as HENGH study sample homes is both inaccurate and unfounded, and Mr. Offermann's citation referencing Singer et al. in support of this reasoning is once again questionable. Mr. Offermann speculates further when he states that the Project's indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations would be "likely similar" to concentrations observed by the HENGH study because the Project 11 will ... be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air." Mr. Offermann demonstrates no understanding of what the "minimum code required amount of outdoor air" would be for the Project, nor does he support his claim that the Project's ventilation would be no greater than "minimum code" requirements with any evidence. Moreover, Mr. Offermann demonstrates no understanding of what ventilation the HENGH study sample homes achieved. He fails to substantiate why the Project would have any similarity in ventilation to the 70 detached single-family homes constructed between 2011 and 2017 that were sampled as part of the HENGH study, and he fails to establish why presumably similar ventilation would even contribute to presumably similar indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations in future Project 2 Note that the OEHHA's recommended FAH value for adult receptors between 16 and 70 years of age is 0.73, or 73% of time spent at home. See OEHHA, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015. Page 4 dwelling units. Mr. Offermann's analysis hinges entirely on the assumption that the Project's dwelling units would experience similar indoor formaldehyde concentrations as HENGH study sample homes. But, as demonstrated, this assumption is wholly unsupported by fact. There are additional aspects of the HENGH study that have not been considered by Mr. Offermann which further diminish its comparative value to the Project, as well. First, the HENGH study sample homes were occupied and therefore presumably furnished. This is a critical detail overlooked by Mr. Offermann. Formaldehyde off -gassing occurs not just from composite wood products used in building construction, but also from composite wood products used commonly in furniture construction. Tables, bedframes, dressers, sofas, chairs, and any other furniture containing composite wood products would also likely emit formaldehyde, possibly at high levels if such furniture was purchased prior to the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM or outside of California. Common indoor sources of formaldehyde also include household products such as glues, paints, caulks, pesticides, fabric softeners, and detergents. Even personal care products and cosmetics such as shampoos, soaps, hair care products, body washes, and nail polish may release formaldehyde. Moreover, many other consumer products also emit VOCs that react with ozone in the air to produce formaldehyde.3 The HENGH study did not determine or speculate what proportion of its measured formaldehyde concentrations were resultant from building materials only. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what measured proportion of indoor formaldehyde concentrations were emitted solely by the building construction materials used in HENGH study sample homes. This is a pivotal consideration because formaldehyde emissions from the objects (i.e., composite wood furniture) and actions (i.e., use of pesticides, detergents, or personal care products) of future Project residents, and any impact that they would have on themselves, is entirely speculative and outside the scope of the Project's CEQA-related impacts. Put another way, the Project is not "on the hook" for any risk that future Project residents may pose to themselves via their own formaldehyde -emitting objects and actions. But, by assuming that future Project residents would experience similar indoor formaldehyde concentrations as measured in the HENGH study, Mr. Offermann puts the Project "on the hook" for an indeterminate amount of formaldehyde emissions that were caused by the objects and actions of HENGH study participants. Second, it is worth noting that the HENGH study specifically instructed participants not to use windows and doors normally as they might do for routine ventilation (See Exhibit 2). This clearly biases the study's results in favor of increased indoor formaldehyde concentrations. While such instruction may have been relevant to the purpose of the HENGH study, in real life, it is reasonable to suspect that future Project residents would occasionally open their windows or doors for purposes of natural ventilation. Exhibit 2 3 appliance use. The participant was provided with an activity log for each day of the study and 4 asked to partake in normal household activities with the exception that windows and doors 5 should not be used for routine ventilation. Most homes were monitored for seven days, five were The highlighted excerpt indicates that HENGH study participants were instructed to not use windows and doors for "routine ventilation." (Singer et al.) 3 CARB, Formaldehyde Online Fact Sheet. ww.2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/formaldehyde. May 1, 2020. Page 5 Mr. Offermann then assumes that because "residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day," a claim that he makes without any supporting evidence, "the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 tag/day for continuous exposure in the residences," which he equates with "a cancer risk of 120 per million." There are at least three issues with this projection (that are in addition to issues that have been previously identified and discussed). First, Mr. Offermann claims that residential occupants would inhale 20 cubic meters of air per day, yet cites no evidence to substantiate this claim. According to the American Lung Association, the average person inhales approximately 2,000 gallons of air per day or roughly 7.57 cubic meters per day.4 Second, Mr. Offermann cites no authority in support of his assumed 70-year lifetime" exposure duration. In fact, his assumption of a "70-year lifetime" exposure duration contradicts the 30-year exposure duration that is consistent with OEHHA recommendations for estimating individual cancer risks. This demonstrates, once again, how Mr. Offermann has resorted to speculative assumptions that are unsupported by relevant regulatory guidance. Third, by assuming that a future Project resident would inhale 482 tag/day of formaldehyde for 70 years (which, as explained, represents two sets of unsupported assumptions), Mr. Offermann overlooks the fact that emissions of formaldehyde gas from composite wood products decrease over time. This is perhaps the most serious deficiency in his analysis. The OEHHA's Proposition 65 webpage for formaldehyde notes how "the release of formaldehyde gas from composite wood decreases over time."' The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission also notes that for formaldehyde sources, "emissions generally decrease as the product ages. ,6 CARB explains that "[f]or products that are made with formaldehyde based resins or adhesives, rapid off -gassing of formaldehyde occurs initially when the product is made, and over time the formaldehyde emissions decrease."' The CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that "[m]ost formaldehyde is released from products within 2 years."$ The CDC's ATSDR raises a particularly salient point because of the 70 homes that were sampled as part of the HENGH study, nearly 70% were 2 years or newer when sampled. This suggests that whatever these homes' proportion of indoor formaldehyde concentrations from building materials might have been, it would have been relatively elevated at the time of the HENGH study due to the age of these homes.9 Over time, formaldehyde concentrations associated with these homes' building materials would be expected to attenuate. Mr. Offermann's analysis runs contrary to this understanding of formaldehyde emissions. Without accounting for the natural decay of formaldehyde emissions over time, Mr. Offermann assumes that a resident's exposure to indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the Project's composite wood building materials would be exactly the same whether it is the first day or the 70th year of their occupancy — a clearly erroneous assumption. 4 American Lung Association, How Your Lungs Get the Job Done, website: https✓/www.lung.org/blog/how-your-lungs-work, accessed July 2023. 5 OEHHA, Formaldehyde in Furniture Products. p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/formaldehyde-furniture-products. April 2016. 6 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), An Update on Formaldehyde. Publication 725. 2013. CARB, Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers (Reducing Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products). Accessed January 3, 2022, 8 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Formaldehyde in Your Home: What You Need to Know. atsdr.cdc.gov/formaldehyde/home/index.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 9 As explained earlier, Singer et al. did not determine or speculate as to what proportion of its measured formaldehyde concentrations were resultant from building materials only. Page 6 With respect to the alleged impact to future employees of the Project's commercial spaces, Mr. Offermann's claims and analysis fall short for similar reasons as those explained previously. In summary, the following is a review of the various issues associated with Mr. Offermann's claims and analysis regarding alleged formaldehyde impacts to future Project residents and employees: 1. Contrary to statements made by Mr. Offermann, the HENGH study did not measure indoor formaldehyde concentrations in new homes built only with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ACTM materials, and the study does not establish what median indoor formaldehyde concentrations for such homes might be. 2. Mr. Offermann's 7.5% "correction" to the 22.4 pg/m3 (18.2 ppb) median indoor formaldehyde concentration finding by the HENGH study is unsupported by Singer et al., and Mr. Offermann's "corrected" figure is not evident anywhere in the paper by Singer et al. 3. Mr. Offermann assumes that future Project residents will spend every hour of every day in their apartments, a clearly inaccurate assumption. 4. In making claims about the Project's ventilation, Mr. Offermann demonstrates no understanding of what the Project's ventilation would be or what the HENGH sample homes' ventilation was. Additionally, he fails to substantiate why the Project would have any similarity in ventilation to the 70 detached single-family homes that were sampled as part of the HENGH study. 5. Mr. Offermann overlooks the fact that HENGH study sample homes were occupied and therefore presumably furnished. The HENGH study did not determine or speculate what proportion of its measured formaldehyde concentrations were resultant from building materials only. It also did not determine or speculate what proportion of concentrations were due to consumer product use by sample home occupants. By assigning the median formaldehyde concentrations measured by the HENGH study to the Project, Mr. Offermann compels the Project to consider the impact of formaldehyde emissions that are outside the scope of CEQA relevance (i.e., formaldehyde emissions from the objects and actions of residents — not those that are directly generated by the Project's building materials). 6. The HENGH study specifically instructed participants to not use windows and doors normally as they might do for routine ventilation, a condition that limits the real -world applicability of the study's findings. 7. Mr. Offermann's cancer risk projection for future Project residents relies on a 70-year lifetime" exposure duration, a speculative assumption that is unsupported by existing regulatory guidance. 8. Mr. Offermann disregards the fact that emissions of formaldehyde gas from composite wood products decrease overtime. Given these considerations, Mr. Offermann's analysis offers no substantial evidence as to why the Project's formaldehyde emissions from CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM building materials would be expected to result in significant cancer risks to future Project residents and employees. Under Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(c), "[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly Page 7 inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." Mr. Offermann's inferences from the HENGH study findings are not reasonable, and at times they directly contradict the explicit admissions and published results of the study itself. Mr. Offermann's assumptions are also erroneous, and at times they directly contradict OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, Mr. Offermann's conclusion that the Project would result in significant cancer risks and that CARB ATCM regulations "do not assure healthful indoor air quality" directly contradict statements from numerous State and Federal agencies regarding formaldehyde emissions, including CARB itself. CARB states that "[f]rom a public health standpoint, the CWP Regulation's emission standards [i.e., the CARB ATCM] are set at low levels intended to protect public health." CARB reiterates this elsewhere, stating that "[t]he Composite Wood Products Regulation establishes emission standards at levels intended to protect public health." The CDC adds that "[f]ormaldehyde exposure from new products or new construction in the home would generally be much lower and would last for less time than the exposures linked to cancer. We estimated the risk of cancer from exposure to typical indoor air levels and it's low." Response to Comment No. 2 Mr. Offermann states that "An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day." The effect of PM2.5 is also not relevant based on California Building Industry Assn v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369, 386. CEQA does not require a project to evaluate the impact of the existing environment on future residents of the Project unless the Project exacerbates the impact. The commentator presents no evidence that there is an existing PM2.5 issue at the Project Site. Further, the commentator is referred to the Technical Memo the Project would not generate PM2.5 emissions in excess of SCAQMD's significance threshold, and no significant impacts related to PM2.5 emissions would occur. Response to Comment No. 3 Regarding the suggested mitigation measures, CEQA requires mitigation measures only for significant impacts, and the commentator has not presented any substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant air quality impacts. Additionally, as outlined in the Technical Memo, the Project would not result in any significant air quality impacts. Therefore, the mitigation measures are not applicable to the Project. Page 8 ATTACHMENT A COMMENT LETTER ME INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ME 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermannAIEE-SF.com hq://www.iec-sfcom Date: September 23, 2023 To: Marjan Kris Abubo A eau Dru LLP lmm Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Cabrillo Town Center Project, Santa Ana, CA IEE File Reference: P-4753) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well - recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the 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. 2of19 The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under -measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). 3of19 With respect to the Cabrillo Town Center Project, Santa Ana, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g., 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. 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 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020). Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g., for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which 4of19 is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the commercial space employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work -day is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 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. In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million. Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. Additionally, the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study ("MATES V") identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 416 per million due to the site's elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area's high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. 5of19 Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no -added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 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 specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non -cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 6of19 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea -formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. 7of19 CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area -specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area -specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area -specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 8of19 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Cain — Etotal (Equation 1) Qoa where: C;,, = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non -Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non -cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non - Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the 9of19 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. Further, we are not asking that the builder "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 above (i.e. Pre - Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated 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 10 of 19 result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (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. According to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Project (ICF, 2018), the Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-5, East 41 Street, North Cabrillo Park Avenue, etc.). This report state in Table T3.7.1, the existing 2018 ambient noise levels range from 63.7 to 73.0 dBA CNEL. Thus this Project is located in a sound impacted area. In order to design the buildings for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on -site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one -week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. 11 of 19 As a result of the anticipated high outdoor noise levels, the Project will likely require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Project (ICF, 2018), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, the SCAQMD's MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 416 per million at the Project site due to the site's high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area's high levels of motor vehicle traffic. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient 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. 12 of 19 Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 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. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "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 above (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. 13 of 19 Outdoor Air Ventilation Miti ag tom. 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 cfin/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PMZ_s Outdoor Air Concentration Miti ag tion. 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. References BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifina.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca. og v/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf 14 of 19 Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 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. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "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 above (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. 13 of 19 Outdoor Air Ventilation Miti ag tom. 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 cfin/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PMZ_s Outdoor Air Concentration Miti ag tion. 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. References BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifina.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca. og v/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf 14 of 19