HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Attachment 4 - Appeal Letter LIUNA
By E-mail
May 7, 2020
Mayor David Haubert
Vice Mayor Arun Goel
Councilmember Melissa Hernandez
Councilmember Jean Josey
Councilmember Shawn Kumagai
City Council
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
council@dublin.ca.gov
Marsha Moore, City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Marsha.moore@dublin.ca.gov
Re: Appeal of Decision of the Planning Commission Approving the Site Development
Review Permit and Minor Use Permit for the Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020,
PLPA-2019-00044).
Dear Mayor Haubert, Vice Mayor Goel, Honorable Councilmembers Hernandez, Josey, and
Kumagai, and Ms. Moore:
I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union
No. 304 (“LIUNA”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Dublin
(“City”) regarding the Planning Commission’s decision of April 28, 2020 to approve the Site
Development Review permit and Minor Use permit for the Cambria Hotel project (“Project”). This
appeal is filed pursuant to Municipal Code section 8.136.050, is timely filed within 10 days of the
Planning Commission’s decision, and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $208. LIUNA is
concerned the Planning Commission did not adequately address its comments, including but not
limited to the following:
1. The Project is not consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan because the
Downtown Specific Plan and its accompanying EIR did not address, and expressly
deferred, specific project-level impacts, including that individual projects be subject to
project-level BAAQMD emission thresholds and a project-by-project analysis of
greenhouse gas emissions;
2. There is substantial evidence of 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 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR was certified as complete showing the Project will
have a significant health risk impact from its indoor air quality that was not discussed in the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR;
Cambria Hotel Project
May 7, 2020
Page 2 of 2
3. There is substantial evidence of 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 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR was certified as complete showing the Project will
have a significant impact on biological resources that was not discussed in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR;
4. There is substantial evidence of 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 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR was certified as complete showing the Project will
have a significant impact on air quality from construction emissions that was not discussed
in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR;
5. There is substantial evidence of 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 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR was certified as complete showing the Project will
have significant health risk impacts that were not discussed in the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan EIR;
6. There is substantial evidence of 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 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR was certified as complete showing the Project will
have significant greenhouse gas impacts that were not discussed in the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan EIR; and
7. There are substantial changed circumstances requiring major revisions to the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR due to a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified transportation and circulation significant effects.
LIUNA’s previous comments to the Planning Commission are attached and incorporated
by reference in this appeal to City Council.
Sincerely,
Paige Fennie
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
April 24, 2020
Via E-Mail
Dawn Benson, Commissioner Amy Million, Principal Planner
Amit Kothari, Commissioner Community Development Department
Stephen Wright, Commissioner City of Dublin
Scott Mittan, Commissioner 100 Civic Plaza
Janine Thalblum, Commissioner Dublin, CA 94568
Planning Commission Amy.Million@dublin.ca.gov
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
PlanningCommission@ci.dublin.ca.us
Re: Comment on the Cambria Hotel Project
(PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044)
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local
Union No. 304 (“LIUNA”) and its members living and/or working in and around the City of
Dublin (“LIUNA”) regarding the Cambria Hotel Project (“Project”) (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-
2019-00044) proposed by Applicant Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC (“Applicant”). The
City of Dublin (“City”) is proposing to approve the Site Development Review Permit and the
Minor Use Permit of the Project without review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), Pub. Res. Code section 21000, et seq., based on the assertion that the Project’s
potential impacts were studied in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report (“DDSP EIR”) approved in December 2010. The City contends that under CEQA
Guidelines section 15182, no further environmental review is required. Given the nature of the
Project, LIUNA disagrees and requests that the Planning Commission deny approval and direct
staff to prepare an EIR to analyze the significant environmental impacts of the Project and to
propose all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce those impacts.
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of Certified Industrial Hygienist
Francis Offerman, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, environmental
consulting firm SWAPE, and traffic expert Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. Mr. Offermann’s comment
and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference
and entirety. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B and are
incorporated herein by reference and entirety. SWAPE’s comment and curriculum vitae are
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 2 of 14
attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Mr.
Smith’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit D hereto and are incorporated
herein by reference as well.
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant proposes to demolish the existing parking lot located south of the existing
Corrie Center office building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard and construct a six-story hotel with four
stories comprised of a total of 138 rooms and two stories of parking comprised of 277 parking
spaces. The Project is located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard, APNs: 941-1500-037-00 and 941-1500-
036-02.
II. STANDING
Members of LIUNA Local 304 live, work, and/or recreate in the vicinity of the Project
Site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly executed or inadequately mitigated
Project, just as would the members of any nearby homeowners association, community group or
environmental group. LIUNA Local 304 members live and work in areas that will be affected by
traffic, noise, air pollution, wildlife impacts and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions generated
by the Project. Therefore, LIUNA Local 304 and its members have a direct interest in ensuring
that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its environmental and public health impacts are
mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the
guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. Pub. Res. Code § 21001(d). To
achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. CEQA
Guidelines § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los
Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 (“Hollywoodland”). First, if a project falls into
an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a
significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if
there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency
must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a). If the study indicates
that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant
effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id., CEQA Guidelines §§
15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an
environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. Id. Here, the City is attempting to bypass
CEQA entirely by claiming that the project is exempt per Section 15182 because the “potential
impacts associated with the proposed project were studied in the DDSP EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines section 15182 provides that “[c]ertain residential, commercial, and
mixed-use projects that are consistent with a specific plan . . . are exempt from CEQA . . . .”
CEQA Guidelines § 15182(a). Residential or mixed-use projects, or projects with a floor plan
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 3 of 14
area ratio of at least 0.75 on commercially zoned property, are exempt from CEQA only if the
project satisfies 3 criteria:
(A) It is located within a transit priority area as defined in Public Resources Code section
21099(a)(7);
(B) It is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was
certified; and
(C) It is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities
strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board has
accepted the determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative
planning strategy would achieve the applicable greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets.
Id., § 15182(b)(1). However, if one of the events in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 occurs,
additional environmental review is required. Id., § 15182(b)(2). CEQA Guidelines section 15162
provides that if an EIR has been certified for a project, a subsequent EIR should not be prepared
unless one of the following occurs:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 4 of 14
Id. § 15162(a).
Here, the Project is not consistent with the DDSP, and there is substantial evidence of
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 DDSP EIR was certified as
complete in 2010, including that the Project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous EIR, substantial changed circumstances will now require major
revisions to the EIR due to a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects, and
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Project is Not Consistent with the DDSP Because the DDRSP and its
Accompanying EIR Did Not Address and Expressly Deferred Specific Project-Level
Impacts.
One of the three conditions under CEQA Guidelines section 15182 in which a project can
be exempt from CEQA review is if a project is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR
was certified. Here, the Project is inconsistent with the DDSP because the DDSP and the DDSP
EIR expressly defer specific project-level environmental review requirements. The need for these
subsequent Project-specific reviews is part and parcel of the DDRSP. The City’s failure to
comply with these requirements results in the Project’s inconsistency with those parts of the
DDSP, and the City can therefore not rely on the DDSP to exempt the Project from a project-
level environmental review.
i. The Project is inconsistent with the DDSP’s provision that individual
projects be subject to project-level BAAQMD emission thresholds.
For construction emissions, the DDSP EIR states that “[f]uture individual projects under
the DDSP would be subject to new project-level emissions thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft
CEQA Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental review process for individual projects,
additional mitigation may also be required to further reduce emissions and potential impacts on a
project-by-project basis.” DDSP EIR, p. 3-32. However, the Project’s Hearing Notice states
“Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15182, potential impacts associated with the proposed project were studied in the DDSP EIR and
its Addendums and, therefore, no further environmental review is required for this project.” City
of Dublin Public Hearing Notice, March 24, 2020. This conclusion is unsubstantiated since the
DDSP EIR did not quantify or evaluate the Project’s emissions. As adopted in 2010 and since
updated in 2017, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as well as the DDSP EIR, require proposed
individual projects to compare their expected emissions to the relevant thresholds of
significance. See “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD,
adopted 2010, updated May 2017, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-
and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1. By failing to
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 5 of 14
compare the Project’s estimated emissions to the relevant BAAQMD thresholds, the City fails to
demonstrate consistency with the DDSP.
The DDSP EIR additionally states that “future development within the project area would
be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings),” which
would in part “ensure that the proposed [DDSP] would have a less than significant impact during
short-term construction activities.” DDSP EIR, p. 3-32. The City fails to address BAAQMD
Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings), and therefore the Project is further inconsistent
with the DDSP.
ii. The Project is inconsistent with the DDSP’s provision for project-by-
project analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.
The DDSP EIR states that, with regard to greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, “[f]uture
projects within the City, including within the project area, would be reviewed on a project-by-
project basis to ensure their compliance with the City’s policies and to determine if any impacts
would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR.” DDSP EIR, p. 3-42. As stated above,
the Project relies on the DDSP EIR for environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15182. However, without a project-level analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions, the
City cannot ensure its compliance with the City’s policies or if the Project would have any GHG
impacts occurring beyond those identified in the DDSP EIR, and therefore the Project is
inconsistent with the DDSP.
B. There is Substantial Evidence of 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 DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete
Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air
Quality Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, conducted a review of
the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor
Environmental Engineering Comments (March 19, 2020) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes
that it is likely that the Project will expose future hotel employees of the Project to significant
impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical
formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann’s calculations are based on new information from a study
published in 2019 on formaldehyde emissions. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air
quality and has published extensively on the topic. See attached CV.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in modern hotel
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 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for
flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex.
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 6 of 14
A, pp. 2-3.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that the employees of
the Project are expected to experience significant work-day exposures. Id., p. 4. This exposure of
employees would 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.” Id., p. 3. Assuming they work eight hour days, five days per week, an
employee would be exposed to a cancer risk of approximately 16.4 per million, assuming all
materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics
control measure. Id., p. 4. This is more than the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id.
Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s
indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result
of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. I-580, Dublin
Boulevard, and San Ramon Boulevard) and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the
ambient air. Id., p. 10. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health
impacts that will result to employees working at the Project.
Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed
in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde
exposure. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce
these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the
applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density
fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-
added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the
buildings’ interiors. Id., pp. 11-12.
Mr. Offermann relies in part on the study by Chan et al. published in 2019 to calculate of
the Projects emissions. This study analyzed the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde for homes
built between 2011 and 2015, and since only Phase 2 composite wood products were permitted
for sale after July 2012, most of the homes in the Chan study were constructed with CARB Phase
2 compliant materials. See id., p. 3. The Chan study shows that homes built after 2009 with
CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations
of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 California New
Home Study. See id. While these buildings had a lower median formaldehyde concentration and
cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk for homes built with CARB Phase 2 compliant
composite wood products still greatly exceeded the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk
threshold. Id. Mr. Offermann relies in part on the indoor formaldehyde concentrations
determined in the 2019 Chan study to conclude that the Project will have similar indoor
concentrations of formaldehyde as observed in the Chan study and exceed the CEQA
significance threshold for airborne cancer risk because the building materials and furnishings
commonly found in homes that release formaldehyde are also found in hotels. The 2019 Chan
study and resulting finding that a project’s compliance with CARB Phase 2 compliant materials
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 7 of 14
is not enough to get a project below the cancer risk threshold is new information that was not
previously available of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DDSP EIR was certified as
complete, showing that the Project will have a significant health risk impact from its indoor air
quality not discussed in the DDSP EIR. Therefore, the City must prepare a subsequent EIR for
the Project.
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental
impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2
v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a
burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s
potential health impacts to workers, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City
should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future
formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below
the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 4-9. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality
modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.
The failure to address the project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California
Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could
enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent
environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally
require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-
801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions
at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801
(“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project
could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that
CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a
project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800
(emphasis added).
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an
existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Employees
will be users of the hotel. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at
the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks.
Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor
air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the
project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA
process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA
expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must
be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example,
requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 8 of 14
‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the
Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public
health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000,
subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future
employees of the project are human beings and the health and safety of those workers is as
important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.
C. There is Substantial Evidence of 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 DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete
Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Biological Resources that
was Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR.
Ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., conducted a review of the proposed Project and
relevant documents regarding the Project’s impacts on biological resources. Shawn Smallwood
Comments (March 24, 2020) (Exhibit B). The DDSP EIR explicitly did not analyze impacts to
biological resources because the DDSP project site is an urban infill area and biological
resources do not exist on the project site and/or are not considered to cause a significant
environmental impact. See DDSP EIR, p. 4-7. However, as Dr. Smallwood explains, substantial
evidence of 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 DDSP EIR was certified as
complete shows the Project may have a significant impact on biological resources that was not
discussed in the DDSP EIR.
Within the last year, the scientific community confirmed that human actions are
cumulatively contributing to the rapid decline of birds across North America. Rosenburg et al.
(2019) quantified a 29% decline of overall bird abundances across North America over the last
48 years. One of the leading causes of bird mortality contributing to this decline is collisions
with windows, and Dr. Smallwood indicates that the Project, as proposed, will result in
significant impacts on birds colliding with the Project’s clear glass windows. Ex. B, p. 9.
Specifically, Dr. Smallwood predicts “69 bird deaths per year” due to the Project. Id. Project
illustrations show extensive use of glass in the façade of the Project’s building. Based on the
proposed commercial floor space, including the hotel and club retail, Dr. Smallwood estimates
the Project would include 892 m2 of glass windows. Id. Since 2016, recent advances in structural
glass engineering have contributed to a worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for
building construction. Id., p. 2. Increasing window-to-wall ratios and glass facades have also
become popular, which is a major feature of the Project. Making matters worse, this feature
could potentially introduce an ecological trap to the many thousands of birds flying across the
junction of east-west and north-south migration routes along the valley structures in which
Downtown Dublin is situated. Id.
On September 27, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 454, reinstating
as state law the recently repealed federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”). As a result,
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 9 of 14
California Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory
nongame bird as designated in the MBTA. The Project’s glass windows inserted into the
aerosphere would annually kill birds of many species protected by California’s new version of
the MBTA, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Id., p. 5.
On March 18, 2019, the tricolored blackbird was listed as threatened under the California
Endangered Species Act (“CESA”). See State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened
Animals of California, p. 11, available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline. eBird records reveal that
the tricolored blackbird has been observed west and east of Dublin, so therefore likely flies
across Dublin during dispersal and migration. Ex. B, p. 4, 5. The Project’s glass windows, which
will be in the tricolored blackbird’ aerosphere, would likely kill some of them, resulting in a
potentially significant impact on that threatened species. Id., p. 5.
As Dr. Smallwood states, reports of scientific investigations published since 2010 have
informed the scientific community of the magnitude of impacts on North American birds, of the
factors contributing to bird-window collisions, and how to mitigate collision risk. Id. Further,
most of the studies contributing to the current understanding of the use of structural glass were
reported in the scientific literature since 2010, and the most comprehensive and informed
guidelines on building design and landscaping to minimize impacts were produced after 2010.
All of this information, including California’s adoption of the MBTA and the change in the
tricolored blackbird’s listing status, was not known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified and
could not have been known because the information came out after the DDSP EIR was certified.
Based on this information, Dr. Smallwood’s analysis provides substantial evidence of a new
significant impact that was not known and could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR
was certified, and therefore a project-level EIR is required.
D. There is Substantial Evidence of 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 DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete
Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Air Quality from
Construction Emissions that was Not Discussed in the DDSP EIR.
Environmental consulting firm SWAPE conducted a review of the proposed Project and
relevant documents regarding the Project’s air quality impacts. SWAPE Comments (March 25,
2020) (Exhibit C). The DDSP EIR explicitly stated that for construction emissions, individual
projects within the DDSP would be subject to new project-level emission thresholds in the
BAAQMD Draft CEQA Guidelines, if adopted, and that through the environmental review
process for individual projects, additional mitigation may be required to further reduce emissions
and potential impacts on a project-by-project basis. See DDSP EIR, p. 3-32. As stated above,
BAAQMD adopted and updated the Draft CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the DDSP
EIR and there is no evidence that the City conducted a project-level emissions analysis for the
Project. In an effort to determine the Project’s construction emissions, SWAPE prepared a
CalEEMod model for the Project, using the Project-specific information provided in the Project’s
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 10 of 14
documentation.
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Model VOC/ROG
SWAPE 54.8
BAAQMD Regional Threshold (lbs/day) 54
Threshold Exceeded? Yes
When modeled, the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions exceed the BAAQMD
significance threshold of 54 lbs/day, resulting in a significant impact. Ex. C, p. 5. SWAPE’s
analysis provides substantial evidence of a significant impact not discussed in the previous
DDSP EIR because SWAPE’s analysis is new information, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified because the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines had not yet been adopted. The City can therefore not rely on CEQA Guidelines
section 15182 to exempt the Project from a project-level EIR.
E. There is Substantial Evidence of 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 DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete
Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impacts that were Not
Discussed in the DDSP EIR.
The DDSP EIR states that the development of any new stationary sources of TACs
associated with the DDSP project area would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations and
permitting requirements. DDSP EIR, p. 3-37. However, there is no evidence that the City
evaluated the Project’s potential health risk impacts. In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk
posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level health risk
assessment (“HRA”). SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality
dispersion model. Ex. C, pp. 7–10. SWAPE used a sensitive receptor distance of 50 meters (the
distance to the closest sensitive receptor) and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages
of life based on OEHHA guidance. Id., pp. 7–9.
SWAPE calculates that the Project’s construction and operation may pose cancer risks to
adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy of approximately 15, 98, 290,
and 22 in one million, well above the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Id.,
pp. 9–10. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime calculated by SWAPE
is 430 in one million, also exceeding the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Id., p. 10.
SWAPE’s analysis provides substantial evidence of a significant impact not discussed in
the previous DDSP EIR because SWAPE’s analysis is new information, which was not known
and could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified because the BAAQMD
CEQA significance thresholds had not yet been adopted and the DDSP EIR required project-
level analysis of TACs. The City can therefore not rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 11 of 14
exempt the Project from a project-level EIR.
F. There is Substantial Evidence of 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 DDSP EIR was Certified as Complete
Showing the Project Will Have a Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts that were Not
Discussed in the DDSP EIR.
The DDSP EIR states that future projects within the City, including those within the
DDSP, are to be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure they comply with the City’s
greenhouse gas (“GHG”) policies in order to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those
already identified in the DDSP EIR. DDSP EIR, p. 3-42. With regards to GHG significance
criteria, the City elected to use their own GHG significance criterion “until such a time as a state
or regional threshold is adopted by a competent agency.” Id., p. 3-44. As stated above, there is no
evidence that the City reviewed the Project’s GHG emissions at a project-level.
In order to determine the Project’s GHG emissions, SWAPE ran a GHG analysis using
CalEEMod with Project-specific information as disclosed in the Project’s documents. SWAPE
determined that the Project’s emissions include approximately 380 MT CO2e/year of total
construction emissions and approximately 1,570 MT CO2e/year of annual operational emissions.
Ex. C, p. 13. Since BAAQMD adopted GHG thresholds, SWAPE compared the Project’s
emissions to BAAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year, concluding that the
Project’s emissions exceed the significance threshold. Id.
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase
Proposed
Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 12.65
Area 0.0079
Energy 579.46
Mobile 941.52
Waste 37.99
Water 10.7
Total 1,582.33
Threshold 1,100
Exceed? Yes
Since the Project’s GHG emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s 1,100 MT CO2e/year
significance threshold, a service population analysis is warranted. Id. SWAPE divided the
Project’s GHG emissions by the service population value of 199 people to find that the Project
would emit approximately 7.95 MT CO2e/SP/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD’s efficiency
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 12 of 14
target goal of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year. Id., pp. 13–14.
SWAPE Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Annual Emissions 1,582.33
Service Population 199
Service Population Efficiency 7.95
Threshold 2.6
Exceed? Yes
SWAPE’s GHG analyses provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not
discussed in the previous DDSP EIR because SWAPE’s analyses are new information, which
were not known and could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified because
the BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds had not yet been adopted and the DDSP EIR
required project-level analysis of GHG emissions. The City can therefore not rely on CEQA
Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from a project-level EIR.
G. There are Substantial Changed Circumstances Requiring Major Revisions to the
DDSP EIR Due to a Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified
Transportation and Circulation Significant Effects.
Under CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(2), if there is substantial evidence of
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will
require major revisions to the DDSP EIR due to a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects, then a subsequent EIR should be prepared. The DDSP
EIR found that in the Near-Term, the Base FAR Project and Maximum FAR Project results in
significant and unavoidable impacts, and in the Cumulative scenario, the Maximum FAR Project
results in significant and unavoidable impacts. See DDSP EIR, pp. 3-172–3-175.
Traffic engineer Dan Smith conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant
documents regarding the Project’s impacts on traffic and circulation. Dan Smith Comments
(March 24, 2020) (Exhibit D). Mr. Smith concludes that the traffic and circulation circumstances
in the DDSP area have significantly changed since the DDSP EIR’s 2010 analysis of these
impacts, and there has been a substantial increase in the severity of the DDSP EIR’s previously
identified significant impacts on traffic and circulation. The City may therefore not rely on
CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from environmental review.
As Mr. Smith notes, the DDSP EIR Traffic and Circulation analysis relied on an existing
traffic data base going back to 2008 and its impact and mitigation findings were based on
forecasts of Near Term traffic to 2015 and Cumulative traffic to year 2035. Ex. D, p. 2. The 2015
analysis is based on existing traffic counts, estimated traffic from a limited set of entitled
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 13 of 14
projects, six within the Project area itself, four elsewhere in Dublin and three others in nearby
areas of Pleasanton and San Ramon, the Project itself, and an estimate of regional traffic growth
through the Project study area to 2015. Id. The 2025 analysis is estimated from Project generated
traffic and general plan based modeled traffic estimates for the area. Id.
Mr. Smith states that the problem with the DDSP EIR analyses is:
many additional major projects have been approved in Dublin alone since 2010,
many of them not on the entitled projects list in the [DDSP EIR] and many of
them requiring General Plan Amendments, so not reflected in either the 2015 or
2035 analyses. In fact there have been a total of 12 development projects
requiring General Plan Amendments approved in Dublin between 2010 and 2018.
Id.
To show just how much these additional projects have changed the traffic and circulation
in the DDSP area, Mr. Smith lists out these major additional projects and the increase in daily
trips they add to the DDSP area that were not considered in the DDSP EIR Traffic and
Circulation analysis. See Ex. B, pp. 2–4. The major projects identified in Mr. Smith’s analysis,
together with numerous small projects not mentioned in his analysis, were clearly not considered
or not fully considered in the DDSP EIR traffic analysis. Therefore, there is substantial evidence
of substantial changed circumstances due to a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects that preclude the City’s reliance on the DDSP and exemption from
further CEQA review under Guidelines sections 15182 and 15162.
H. There are Mitigation Measures That are Considerably Different From Those
Analyzed in the DDSP EIR that Would Substantially Reduce Significant Effects on
the Environment, but the City declines to Adopt the Mitigation Measures.
If there is new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete, including mitigation
measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DDSP EIR that would
substantially reduce significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt them,
then a subsequent EIR may be required. See CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3). The DDSP EIR
did not analyze the impacts on biological resources or indoor air quality, yet as Mr. Offermann
and Dr. Smallwood concluded, the Project will have significant impacts on indoor air quality and
biological resources. The DDSP EIR also concluded that the air quality and GHG emission
impacts would be less than significant, yet SWAPE concluded that the Project will have
significant air quality and GHG impacts. Along with these experts’ conclusions, they provided
feasible mitigation measures that the City could implement to substantially reduce the significant
impacts they identified. However, since the City relies on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to
exempt the Project from further environmental review, the City is declining to adopt any
mitigation measures for the Project’s impacts outside of the ones identified in the DDSP EIR.
Cambria Hotel Project
April 24, 2020
Page 14 of 14
Mr. Offermann’s comment includes a list of mitigation measures the City could feasibly
implement to substantially reduce the Project’s significant indoor air quality impacts. Ex. A, pp.
11–12. The effectiveness of these mitigation measures were not fully understood until after the
certification of the DDSP EIR, so it is new information of substantial importance, which was not
known and could not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete.
Dr. Smallwood’s comment also includes a list of mitigation measures the City could
feasibly implement to substantially reduce the Project’s significant impacts on biological
resources. Ex. B, pp. 13–16. Most of the mitigation measures suggested by Dr. Smallwood were
not identified until after the DDSP EIR was certified, such as the American Bird Conservancy
Guidelines in 2015, and the City of San Francisco building design guidelines in 2011. See id., p.
16. These mitigation measures are therefore new information of substantial importance, which
were not known and could not have been known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete.
SWAPE’s comment also includes a list of mitigation measures the City could feasibly
implement to substantially reduce the Project’s significant construction and operational
emissions. See Ex. C, pp. 14–21. Many of these mitigation measures were not identified until
after the DDSP EIR was certified, including the Northeast Diesel Collaborative’s Best Practices
for Clean Diesel Construction in 2012. See id., p. 15. These mitigation measures are therefore
new information of substantial importance, which were not known and could not have been
known when the DDSP EIR was certified as complete.
The feasible mitigation measures Mr. Offermann, Dr. Smallwood, and environmental
consulting firm SWAPE recommended to substantially reduce the significant impacts each
expert also identified that the Project will have is new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when
the DDSP EIR was certified, and are considerably difference from those analyzed in the DDSP
EIR because no mitigation measures were analyzed for these categories of environmental effects.
The City therefore cannot rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15182 to exempt the Project from
project-level environmental review.
IV. CONCLUSION
The City has not met the criterion under CEQA Guidelines section 15182 and therefore
cannot use section 15182 to relieve the City from conducting project-level CEQA review for the
Project. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and all
attachments hereto in the record of proceedings for this project.
Sincerely,
Paige Fennie
Lozeau | Drury LLP
Exhibit A
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: March 19, 2020
To: Paige Fennie
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: \Cambria Hotel – Dublin, CA
(IEE File Reference: P-4344)
Pages: 15
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants,
and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a
well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-
performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards
Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important
because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors
with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the
population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young
and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing
number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.
Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other
business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings
relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain
2
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson,
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route
of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate
ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL
concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL
concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3,
and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the Bay Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory
irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels
(RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the
Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured
with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and
3
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring,
cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics
control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood
products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and
also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air
Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced
emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that
homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-
2018 (Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes
built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor
formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2
ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38%
lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime
cancer risk is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood
products, which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold
(OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to this project, the buildings in the Cambria Hotel Project in Dublin, CA
consist of a hotel.
The employees of the hotel are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g.,
40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to
result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the
building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and
hotels.
4
Because the hotel will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM
materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the
indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in
residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median
of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the hotel employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day,
the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 149 µg/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years
(start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose
is 65.8 µg/day.
This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact
should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should
impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation
measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an
EIR.
While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built
with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that
indoor formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels,
residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this
project and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted
prior to completion of the environmental review.
The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the
environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations
resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings
5
selected for the building exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design
analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the
City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that
contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that
alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations
and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment.
This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review
under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed
loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate
data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation
rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the
conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings
are specified, purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer
and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific
material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that
cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality
zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each
ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or
group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a
separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design
minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums,
etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that
type.
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
6
sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants,
adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-
formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the
formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde
emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate
(µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes
(California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers
of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate
tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States
conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that
a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the
maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH
emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office,
school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure
Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in
Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do
not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the
product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the
maximum rate allowed 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
7
rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined
from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be
used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed
(i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than
desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete
chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test
report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-
specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed
in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and
reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor
Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air
Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals
with the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a
chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory
(https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission
rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total
formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖= 𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (Equation 1)
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
8
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)
The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department
of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ
Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde
concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or
Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde
exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per
million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health
risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of
formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or
furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings,
9
or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as
mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs
associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how much composite
materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on
the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California
Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”,
(CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials
selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the
outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the
primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor
air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor
air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation
as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price,
2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the
24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire
preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field
session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows,
especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a
range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates
below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the
relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never
open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates
and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
10
The Cambria Hotel Project – Dublin, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic
(e.g. I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Boulevard, etc.). As a result of the outdoor
vehicle traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site. The noise
analyses provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RBF Consultants, 2010),
reports in Table 3.7-5, noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL at many locations and
ranging to a maximum of 70.1 dBA CNEL
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for
mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior
environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow
windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise
within building interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle
traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RBF Consultants, 2010), this Project is located in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area
for PM2.5.
An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in
the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to
consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected
future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and
airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor
concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5
exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor
air that has air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor
concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards.
11
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average
concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in
all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon
indoor quality:
- indoor formaldehyde concentrations
- outdoor air ventilation
- PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g.
hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or
ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Other projects such as the
AC by Marriott Hotel – West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main
Street, Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements
stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building
Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination
of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood
materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct
using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
12
Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off
gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous
mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the
greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the
system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is
entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor
airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced
outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a
manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the
mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the
system.
PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5
removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor
PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement
by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air
ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated
frequency of replacement.
References
AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers’
International Union of North America Local 652.
13
Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano,
Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 652.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San
Francisco, CA. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines.
www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume
1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento,
CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB
Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.
14
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-
CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions
for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public
Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in
New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI:
10.20357/B7QC7X.
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.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65
Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable
Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf
15
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA
Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air
Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related
Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic
Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference
on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA.
Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of
Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes.
RBF Consultants. 2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact
Report.
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980)
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 -
present.
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in
conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation
development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance
measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and
ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new
State of Washington Ecology Department building.
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air
diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion
Performance Index.
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical
emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured
ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern
and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners,
managers, hygienists, and engineers.
2
Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March,
1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced
choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated
calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage
treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication
rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to
August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and
field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies
(i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including
evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant
transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems
and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their
effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates
and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system
used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January,
1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor
correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters
on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating
Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to
October, 1979.
3
Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell
and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing
equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new
equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system
and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material
handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing
the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992)
• Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation
Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010)
- Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee
- Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper
Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
4
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ)
• Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009)
- Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012)
Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada,
August, 1990.
Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July,
1993.
Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable
Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.
Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27,
1997.
Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air
Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.
Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August,
1999.
Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.
5
Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July
2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey,
CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum,
Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air
2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the
development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air
cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an
alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air
exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during
nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65
product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department
of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls
who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality
and environmental tobacco smoke.
6
Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the
proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of
Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the
Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct
a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick
Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality
Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California
Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-
cigarettes.
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in
Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality,"
Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air
Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537,
1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation
Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers,"
ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of
Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-
1B, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen,
"Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing
and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and
K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
7
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater,
"Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny
Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air
Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air
Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three
Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592
1989.
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume
Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and
Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon
Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air,
1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler
for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot
Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different
Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy
Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor
Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air,
Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a
Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an
Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing
Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
8
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates
Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for
Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas
Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local
Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and
Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas
in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181,
ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation
Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing
Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation
and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers,
Netherlands, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions
from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building
Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96,
Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air,
Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from
PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland,
August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on
Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints
9
in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”,
submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical
Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good
For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New
California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”,
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips,
“Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB
2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from
Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU,
July, 2012.
W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai,
“Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease
Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”,
Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive
Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”,
Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
10
OTHER REPORTS:
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential
Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the
Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A
Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report
LBL-12777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and
G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted
Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air
Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An
interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen,
"Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor
Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American
Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and
J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro,
"Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from
Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
11
R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and
Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol
Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial
Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525,
Elsevier, 1984.
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of
Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August
20-24, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi-
Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office
Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office
Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental
Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides",
an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold
Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System
in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board,
March, 1990.
12
L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for
Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling
and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90,
July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”,
Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 -
Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE
Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation
Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”,
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH,
1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to
Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air
Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design &
Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in
Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and
Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution,
Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981.
13
"Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat
Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,"
Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA,
May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and
Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26,
1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno,
NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and
the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality
Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System,"
Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the
Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21,
1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to
Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency
and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management
Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air
'89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
14
"Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable
Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20,
1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a
workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21,
1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando,
FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C.,
February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24,
1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991;
Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991;
Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ,
November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23,
1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems
Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property
Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium &
International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association
of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA,
September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001,
Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the
Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY,
January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991;
Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV,
December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6,
1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,
15
NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV,
March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995;
Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose
Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the
Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23,
1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November
14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual
Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness",
Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992.
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in
Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January
26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor
air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers;
Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles,
March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas,
August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993;
Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997.
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA
one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility
managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San
Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
16
“Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San
Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management
workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco,
October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose,
March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton,
November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa
Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San
Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”,
AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air
Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety
Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September
27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3,
1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24,
1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA;
October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant
Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9,
1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change
Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and
Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996.
“IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual
Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
“The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene
Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
17
“ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric
Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30,
1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State
Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21,
1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE,
Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March
19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10,
1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San
Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE
Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
“Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”,
PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction
Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
“Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference,
San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda
County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28,
1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland
Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO,
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998.
“Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.
18
“Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety
Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of
California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental
Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction
Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect
Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency,
Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3,
2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint
Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County
& Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
“Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium,
sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000,
Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design &
Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”,
BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd,
2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University
of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire
Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002.
“Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX;
April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California
Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training;
Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.
19
“Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH
Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9,
2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA,
January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004;
Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA,
November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November
18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited
Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
“Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker,
Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American
Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
“Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities
Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008
Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of
Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference,
October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home
Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
“Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air
Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
20
“Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition,
Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”,
Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”,
ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21,
2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings,
Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California
Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career
Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San
Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus
Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor
Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation
System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington,
DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park
Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”,
Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis
Hotel, May 27, 2015.
21
“Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA
Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2,
2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution,
Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center
Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
“A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts
of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood
Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65
Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
“Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December
1, 2016.
Exhibit B
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Amy Million - Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568 24 March 2020
RE: Cambria Hotel Project
Dear Ms. Million,
I write to comment on the proposed Cambria Hotel Project, which I understand would
add a 68-foot tall, 6-story hotel (89,700 ft2) on 0.91 acres of land. I write to comment
on bird-window collisions that would result from this project, as well as traffic impacts
on wildlife. Neither of these impacts were addressed in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan EIR (City of Dublin 2010), and scientific understanding of both has increased in
recent years.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D.
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked
for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range
Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection,
habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and
activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading
species. I perform research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric
distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers
on special-status species issues, including “Using the best scientific data for endangered
species conservation” (Smallwood et al. 1999), and “Suggested standards for science
applied to conservation issues” (Smallwood et al. 2001). I served as Chair of the
Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a
member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a
part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of
wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as
well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental
Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-three years,
including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
According to the City of Dublin’s public hearing announcement regarding the proposed
Cambria Hotel Project, no further environmental review is required for the Project
beyond that already performed in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (City of
Dublin 2010). However, circumstances related to biological resources have changed in
2
the decade since the City certified its EIR. These changed circumstances are all the
more pertinent to potential impacts of the proposed project because the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not analyze potential impacts on biological resources.
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR omitted any analysis of potential impacts on
biological resources because City of Dublin (2010:4-7) concluded that biological
resources do not exist within the City. Evidence collected since 2010 demonstrates
otherwise – that special-status species of wildlife often occur within the City of Dublin.
For example, eBird (https://eBird.org) records reveal hundreds of eyewitness
observations of birds in and around Downtown Dublin, including members of special-
status species (Table 1). Many birds live and breed in Downtown Dublin, but many
thousands also pass through Dublin annually on migration along valley corridors which
also accommodate Highways 580 and 680. The evidence is overwhelming that the
premise of City of Dublin’s conclusion of no impacts to wildlife was a false premise. Be
that as it may, circumstances have changed since 2010, and these changed
circumstances bring a fair argument that a project-specific EIR should be prepared for
the Cambria Hotel Project.
Just in the last year, the scientific community confirmed that human actions are
cumulatively contributing to the rapid decline of birds across North America. Using
data from radar installations and Breeding Sird Survey transects across North America,
Rosenberg et al. (2019) quantified a 29% decline of overall bird abundance across North
America over the last 48 years. The likely ecological and economic costs of losing nearly
a third of our birds has yet to be estimated, but these costs are likely substantial. The
current trend cannot continue without suffering extinctions of multiple species, reduced
biological diversity and a diminished quality of life for Americans. One of the leading
causes of bird mortality contributing to this decline has been collisions with windows
(see below).
Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of
glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer
buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a
worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016.
Increasing window-to-wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple
reasons, including a growing demand for ‘daylighting.’ A high window-to-wall ratio is
also a major feature of the Cambria Hotel Project, as depicted on City of Dublin’s web
site introducing the Project. This proposed project would potentially introduce an
ecological trap to birds flying across the junction of east-west and north-south migration
routes along the valley structures in which Downtown Dublin is situated.
3
Table 1. Special-status species reported on eBird (https://eBird.org) for the project area.
Species
Scientific name
Status1
eBird
posts
Window
impacts
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus TWL, BCC Nearby
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
California gull Larus californicus TWL Nearby
Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CE, CFP Nearby
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BCC, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Merlin Falco columbarius TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus TWL, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BCC, FGC 3503.5 Nearby Yes
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus SSC3, FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti FGC 3503.5 Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba FGC 3503.5, Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SCC2 Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby Many
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus FE, CE Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL Nearby
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby Yes
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2, BCC Nearby Yes
San Francisco
common yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa SSC3, BCC Nearby Yes
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus
savannarum
SSC2 Nearby Yes
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
4
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CE = California
endangered, CT = California threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (Fish and Game Code 3511),
FGC 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2
and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and TWL =
Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
5
Not only would this ecological trap be inserted into the airspace of migrating birds, but
it would be inserted after just learning of humanity’s cumulative effects on North
American birds and just after new laws were passed to do something about these effects.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 454 into law on 27 September 2019, adding
protection to several hundred bird species. This new law amended California Fish and
Game Code section 3513 to protect birds that had been protected by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This new law carries particular significance for bird-window
collisions that the proposed project would cause, because hundreds of these newly
protected species have been recorded in and around Downton Dublin in recent years
(see eBird: https://eBird.org), 38 of which are special-status species in addition to the
new law, and 12 of which are known to be susceptible to window collisions (Table 1).
Another recent change to legal protections of birds was the recent listing of tricolored
blackbird as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Tricolored
blackbirds have been recorded west and east of Dublin, so likely fly across Dublin during
dispersal and migration. Glass windows inserted into their airspace could kill some of
them. Glass windows inserted into the aerosphere would annually kill birds of many
other species protected by California’s new version of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Just as the scientific community recently quantified the effects of humanity’s cumulative
effects on North American birds, reports of scientific investigations published since
2010 have also informed the scientific community of the magnitude of impacts, of the
factors contributing to bird-window collisions, and how to mitigate collision risk. And
just as the use of structural glass proliferated over the last several years, most of the
studies contributing to our new understanding were reported in the scientific literature
since 2010. Also, the most comprehensive and informed guidelines on building design
and landscaping to minimize impacts were produced after 2010 (San Francisco
Planning Department 2011, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Therefore, the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR could not have anticipated the proliferation of structural glass
in new developments, nor could it have anticipated the documented 29% decline of
North America’s birds or the added legal protections afforded to birds in response to
this decline. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare a project-specific EIR
for the Cambria Hotel Project, which proposes to impose large glass windows on birds
attempting to pass through Dublin.
Below I review the bird-window collision issue, hypothesized causal factors and
recommended mitigation solutions. I also predict bird-window collision rates based on
studies performed across the USA at structures ranging widely in height, window to wall
ratio, types of glass, orientation, and structural context. My aim is to make a robust
prediction from this range of study conditions, and to present the associated large
confidence interval that I believe is appropriate in the face of uncertainty over how
many birds fly through the project area and what proportion of the birds are more
susceptible that others to window collision.
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are
differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and
other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266
6
bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass
walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn
birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not
attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,235
birds were likely killed over the 50 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a
relatively small building façade (Figure 2). Accounting for the proportion of fatalities
not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 50 years would have
been about 12,705. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two
college campus buildings.
Figure 2. A walkway connecting two buildings at
Washington State University where one of the
earliest studies of bird collision mortality found 85
bird fatalities per year prior to marking windows
(254 annual deaths adjusted for the proportion not
found). Given that the window markers have long
since disappeared, this walkway has likely killed at
least 12,705 birds since 1968, and continues to kill
birds. Notice that the transparent glass on both
sides of the walkway gives the impression of
unimpeded airspace that can be navigated safely by
birds familiar with flying between tree branches.
Also note the reflected images of trees, which can
mislead birds into seeing safe perch sites. Further
note the distances of ornamental trees, which allow
birds taking off from those trees to reach full speed
upon arrival at the windows.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or
human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often
attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion
bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988
million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013)
estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively.
However, these estimates and their interpretation warrant examination because they
were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, and fatality
monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per
building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings
estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by
fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also,
the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his
estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird-
7
window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated
more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper
end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the
estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to
windows has the same level of impact.
Homes with birdfeeders are associated with higher rates of window collisions than are
homes without birdfeeders (Kummer and Bayne 2015, Kummer et al. 2016a), so the
developed area might pose even greater hazard to birds if it includes numerous
birdfeeders. Another factor potentially biasing national or North American estimates
low was revealed by Bracey et al.’s (2016) finding that trained fatality searchers found
2.6× the number of fatalities found by homeowners on the days when both trained
searchers and homeowners searched around homes. The difference in carcass detection
was 30.4-fold when involving carcasses volitionally placed by Bracey et al. (2016) in
blind detection trials. This much larger difference in trial carcass detection rates likely
resulted because their placements did not include the sounds that typically alert
homeowners to actual window collisions, but this explanation also raises the question of
how often homeowner participants with such studies miss detecting window-caused
fatalities because they did not hear the collisions.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird-
window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were
underway. Loss et al. (2014) were able to incorporate many more fatality rates based on
scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include.
However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which
in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et
al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand,
such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality
metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can
include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was
based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were
limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-
laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included
adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how
and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al.
(2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty
mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source,
their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable
to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius
around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my
experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of
bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows,
especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher
detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover
8
or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on
anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby
preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates
for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence
rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As
mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species
within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State
University (no adjustments attempted). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among
13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week,
Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year,
and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24
birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under
buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration
periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each.
Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of
two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et
al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found
271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16
species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of
survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8
buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days
of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision
victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016)
searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after
63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another
building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating
a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence
available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many
collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction
Predicting the number of bird collisions at a new project is challenging because the
study of window collisions remains in its early stages. Researchers have yet to agree on
a collision rate metric. Some have reported findings as collisions per building per year
and some as collisions per building per day. Some have reported findings as collisions
per m2 of window. The problem with the temporal factor in the collision rate metrics
has been monitoring time spans varying from a few days to 10 years, and even in the
case of the 10-year span, monitoring was largely restricted to spring and fall migration
seasons. Short-term monitoring during one or two seasons of the year cannot represent
a ‘year,’ but monitoring has rarely spanned a full year. Using ‘buildings’ in the metric
treats buildings as all the same size, when we know they are not. Using square meters of
glass in the metric treats glass as the only barrier upon which birds collide against a
building’s façade, when we know it is not. It also treats all glass as equal, even though
9
we know that collision risk varies by type of glass as well as multiple factors related to
contextual settings.
Without the benefit of more advanced understanding of window collision factors, my
prediction of project impacts will be uncertain. Klem’s (1990) often-cited national
estimate of avian collision rate relied on an assumed average collision rate of 1 to 10
birds per building per year, but studies since then have all reported higher rates of
collisions 12 to 352 birds per building per year. Because the more recent studies were
likely performed at buildings known or suspected to cause many collisions, collision
rates from them could be biased high. By the time of these comments I had reviewed
and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 181 buildings and façades for which
bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and
Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010,
Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016,
Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Schneider et al. 2018).
These study results averaged 0.077 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.04-
0.11). Looking over the proposed commercial floor space, including the hotel and club
retail, I estimated the project would include 892 m2 of glass windows. Applied to the
mean fatality rate, this area of glass would predict 69 bird deaths per year (95% CI:
36-98). The 50-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be 3,434 bird
deaths (95% CI: 1,784-4,906), which would continue until the buildings of the project
are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down.
As mentioned earlier, the accuracy of this prediction depends on factors known or
hypothesized to affect window collision rates. However, I used all the variation in
collision rates that was available and which resulted from a wide range in building
height, type of glass, indoor and outdoor landscaping, interior light management,
window to wall ratio, and structural context of the façade. This variation contributed to
a robust bird-window collision rate represented by a wide 95% confidence interval.
According to the confidence interval, which again was based on the wide range of
conditions in the underlying data, the proposed project built as designed at 100
locations would be predicted to kill between 36 and 98 birds per year at 95 of those 100
locations, leaving the other 5 to kill birds at rates either lower or higher than this range.
Even at the low end of the interval, the death toll would be excessive, amounting to 1784
bird deaths over 50 years. This impact would be significant, especially considering that
the predicted fatality rate can be prevented by implementing appropriate mitigation
measures. Below I will discuss hypothesized bird-window collision factors, and I will
recommend mitigation measures.
Bird-Window Collision Factors
Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature. Following this list
are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience.
(1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other
flights
10
(2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor
plants
(3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace
(4) Black hole or passage effect
(5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other
reflective surface
(6) Size of window
(7) Type of glass
(8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations
(9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground)
(10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure
(11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment
(12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious
surface vs vegetation
(13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building
(14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants
(15) Relative abundance
(16) Season of the year
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior
(18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack
(19) Aggressive social interactions
(1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure’s collision risk can be
attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington
Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality
count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and
Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows,
although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is
that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although the
impacts of a glass-sided building would likely be much greater.
(2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors
contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in
windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of
the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior
vegetation.
(3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors
contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows
on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace,
vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb
and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the
lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem
et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation
associated positively with collisions.
11
(4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the
bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The
black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge
that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites.
The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions
give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be
nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of
both of these factors.
(5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al.
(2013), and Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) reported increased collision fatalities at
buildings with larger reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of
windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between
fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed.
(6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on
large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows.
(7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the
type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the
types of glass in buildings.
(8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated
positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the
extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an
80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program.
However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such
as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building.
(9) Height of structure.—I found little if any hypothesis-testing related to building
height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of
high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller
buildings?
(10) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not
convincingly. Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would
require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some
portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations
cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be
testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different
orientations would help.
(11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of
structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little
attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific
literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision
12
rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in
slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington
State University.
(12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have
associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et
al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016a).
(13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have
sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation
near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016a, Ocampo-
Peñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship
between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what
probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the
vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from
that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the façade to result
in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m
away, birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at
the windows.
(14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P <
0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds
counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental
installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold.
(15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local
density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been
measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a
negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings.
(16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during
spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day
carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were
considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words,
the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying
seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions
into the glass façades of the project’s building would likely be concentrated in fall and
spring migration periods.
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds
were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and
waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by
higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with
buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al.
(2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible
to collision than resident birds.
13
(18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of
window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing
birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern
mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide
with the project’s windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk,
Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk.
(19) Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of
aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal
account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have
witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the
birds hitting a window.
Window Collision Solutions
Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great
opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing
structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new
structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts.
However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most
importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs
and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through
experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality
monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project.
Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the
literature.
Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and
nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the
prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where
certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures
prior to construction, because post-construction options will be limited, likely more
expensive, and probably less effective.
(1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts
(1A) Marking windows
(1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation
(1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation
(1D) Managing nocturnal lighting
(1A) Marking windows.—Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on
windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after
placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al.
(2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with
windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird
collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al.
14
(2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities
82% and 95%. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested
experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects
(Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).
Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows
of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I
moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US
Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my
windows during the 8 years hence. On 8 December 2018, I photographed a ruby-
crowned kinglet pulling up short of my window (Figure 3), right at one of my installed
markers. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations.
Figure 3. Ruby-crowned kinglet puts on the
brakes in front of a decal I applied to mark
windows of my home, 8 December 2018. This
window killed birds prior to marking, but I
have found no window collision victims since
marking the windows. Windows with
attractive built-in marking are commercially
available.
(2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts
(2A) Deciding on location of structure
(2B) Deciding on façade and orientation
(2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows
(2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades
(2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants
(2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs
(3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts
(3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns
(3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed.
Guidelines on Building Design
If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available guidelines on
building design intended to minimize collision hazards to birds. The American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles,
shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions,
such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during
migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San
15
Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based
on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al.
2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents
provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual
examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines
are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.
For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific
monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be
avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation
should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended
in the available guidelines remain of uncertain effectiveness, and even if these measures
are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess
effectiveness and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for
fatalities.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
An EIR is needed to identity past, ongoing and anticipated future projects that
contribute cumulatively to bird-window collision fatalities in Dublin. An estimate is
needed of the cumulative extent of glass windows and curtain walls. This estimate is
needed because it can be used to estimate or predict the number of annual deaths of
birds colliding with windows in Dublin. The cumulative impact needs to be understood
so that appropriate mitigation can be formulated to minimize, reduce, rectify and offset
the impact. A project-specific EIR needs to be prepared to provide such an analysis.
MITIGATION
Based on City of Dublin (2010) and the environmental documentaiton thus far
presented in support of the Cambria Hotel Project, the public and City of Dublin’s
decision-makers remain uninformed about avian use of the project site and about the
potential effects of bird-window collisions that would be caused by the project. City of
Dublin inadequately informs the public about how avian use of the site can potentially
transform avian susceptibility to window collisions into avian vulnerability in the face of
the structures built as part of the project. Surveys are needed to learn how many of each
bird species fly through the area, and at what times of day (and night), and at what
heights above ground and under what circumstances. Biologists familiar with bird flight
behaviors need to survey for birds on the project site. Nocturnal surveys can be
performed using a thermal-imaging camera, although many of the birds would not be
identifiable to species during nocturnal surveys. Such surveys would inform of collision
risk, and could inform mitigation strategies involving interior light management and
design modifications to facades facing the prevailing approach directions of migrating
birds.
Transparency and reflectance increase collision risk, but there are materials available to
minimize the effects of transparency and reflectance, including the glass itself.
Landscaping around buildings can also affect collision risk, but risks can be minimized
16
by carefully planning the landscaping. Interior lighting also increases risk to nocturnal
migrants, but the effects of interior lighting is readily mitigated by minimizing use of
lights as well as the lighting of any interior landscaping. I recommend consulting
available guidelines on minimizing impacts to wildlife caused by windows. For example,
the American Bird Conservancy produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles,
shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions,
such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during
migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San
Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based
on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al.
2007).
In addition to measures for minimizing wind collision impacts, I recommend fatality
monitoring around the building’s perimeter. Such monitoring should be scientific,
adhering to standards developed for fatality monitoring in other window collision
studies and along electrical circuits and at wind projects.
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities
Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife
rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to
these facilities for care. Most of the wildlife injuries will likely be caused by window
collisions. But the project’s impacts can also be offset by funding the treatment of
injuries to animals caused by other buildings, electric lines, cars, and cats.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird
collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal,
taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban
university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird-
window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The
Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
17
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
City of Dublin. 2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Report, SCH # 20100022005, Dublin, California.
Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species:
urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20.
DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3.
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal
of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in
Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding
season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460.
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density
and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of
avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of
Field Ornithology 83:203-211.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins.
2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window
collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in
Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a
west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes
from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
18
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of
bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight
Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or
prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual
signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology
125:406–411.
Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009.
Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an
urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134.
Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window
collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI
10.5751/ACE-00787-100206.
Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to
identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the
United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada
of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation
and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle .
2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The
Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679.
19
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building
collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess
bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic
Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada,
UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird-
window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog-
2015-0057
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian
density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San
Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the
Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American
Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for
endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C.
Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to
conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
36:40-49.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the
Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation
Biology 1:1–19.
Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update
on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37.
1
Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
puma@dcn.org
Ecologist
Expertise
Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human
industry, infrastructure, and activities;
Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful
ecological patterns that can inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
443 professional publications, including:
80 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
337 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
84 public presentations of research results at meetings
Reviewed many professional papers and reports
Testified in 4 court cases.
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers
representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate
the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor,
Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The
five-member committee investigated the causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC
Smallwood CV
2
reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting
services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and
produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research
to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous
waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat,
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western
burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore;
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity,
Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field
Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Taught Contemporary
Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation (twice), Mammalogy, Behavioral
Ecology, and Ornithology Lab.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and
monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric
distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Systems Ecologist, 1996 to present, Consulting in the Public Interest, www.cipi.com. Member of a
multi-disciplinary consortium of scientists facilitating large-scale, environmental planning
projects and litigation. We provide risk assessments, assessments of management practices, and
expert witness testimony.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including
travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on
integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas,
using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California,
Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife
interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater
across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Headed NESN’s efforts to
inform academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the
Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws pertaining to special-status species. Also
testified at public hearings on behalf of environmental groups and endangered species.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to
Smallwood CV
3
determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in
Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting
services in environmental planning. Developed quantitative assessment of land units for their
conservation and restoration opportunities, using the ecological resource requirements of 29
special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo
County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under the mentorship of Dr. Shu Geng, studied landscape and management effects on temporal
and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and
Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Also managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in
California agriculture, and assisted with a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination
across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine
Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard
Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research
Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research
Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North
America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on
economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Biology, developing and implementing a statewide mountain lion track count for long-term
monitoring of numbers and distribution.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical
monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods
used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based
collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies
(principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay
Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field
biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The
goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new
wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before-
after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine
developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a
Smallwood CV
4
$718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program
and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who
performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal
behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS
analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its
MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by
5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are
perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range
management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure
management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird
electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at
10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony
on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive
and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based
on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect
surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal
court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a
jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing
animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,
Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as
well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for
evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered
substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired
power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery
systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities
Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of
Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared
expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife
and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant
kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s
hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the
Smallwood CV
5
decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented
habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and
Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus
epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie
and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day
workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1-
day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and
consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental
Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate
vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis
Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of
Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the
success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the
response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the
response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration
efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in
Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife
Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed
California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining
scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and
holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act
once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of
scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase
the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments
for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of
the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need
and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the
US and China.
Smallwood CV
6
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to
spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the
County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a
hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem
ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help
guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout
California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and
gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also
monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected
quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and
initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing
cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia,
the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other
wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a
200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and
methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups
in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on
vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base
of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater
contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various
poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in
forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern
California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and
bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research
and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health
hazards.
Smallwood CV
7
Representative Clients/Funders
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC
Law Offices of Berger & Montague Comstocks Business (magazine)
Lozeau | Drury LLP BioResource Consultants
Law Offices of Roy Haber Tierra Data
Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Black and Veatch
Law Office of John Gabrielli Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center
Law Office of Bill Kopper EcoStat, Inc.
Law Office of Donald B. Mooney US Navy
Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Department of Agriculture
Law Office of Steven Thompson US Forest Service
Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Fish & Wildlife Service
California Wildlife Federation US Department of Justice
Defenders of Wildlife California Energy Commission
Sierra Club California Office of the Attorney General
National Endangered Species Network California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Transportation
The Humane Society California Department of Forestry
Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Food & Agriculture
Environmental Protection Information Center Ventura County Counsel
Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law County of Yolo
Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Seatuck Environmental Association Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District
Save Our Scenic Area East Bay Regional Park District
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound County of Alameda
Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk Don & LaNelle Silverstien
Alameda Creek Alliance Seventh Day Adventist Church
Center for Biological Diversity Escuela de la Raza Unida
California Native Plant Society Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman
Endangered Wildlife Trust Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc.
and BirdLife South Africa Bob Sarvey
AquAlliance Mike Boyd
Oregon Natural Desert Association Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund
Save Our Sound Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry
G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Lisa Rocca
Emerald Farms Kevin Jackson
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto
Southern California Edison Co. Nancy Havassy
Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade)
Northern Territories Inc. Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc.
David Magney Environmental Consulting Panorama Environmental, Inc.
Wildlife History Foundation Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC
FloDesign Wind Turbine
EDF Renewables
Smallwood CV
8
Representative special-status species experience
Common name Species name Description
Field experience
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections
Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections
California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections
Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County
California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections
Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections
Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Research in Sumatra
Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications
Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation
Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley
San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Research, conservation at NAS Lemoore
Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens
Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring
Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus
distichlus
Captures; habitat assessment
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Research in Altamont Pass
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Research in Sacramento Valley
Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Research and publication
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Research and publication
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Research in Sacramento Valley
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County
Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Research at multiple locations
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Research and publication
Analytical
Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report.
Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication
Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports
Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Expert testimony
Smallwood CV
9
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. In press. The challenges of repowering. Proceedings from the Conference on
Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, March 2015, Berlin, Germany. Springer.
May, R., A.B. Gill, J. Köppel, R.H.W. Langston, M. Reichenbach, M. Scheidat, S. Smallwood and
C.C. Voigt. In press. Future research directions. Proceedings from the Conference on Wind
Energy and Wildlife Impacts, March 2015, Berlin, Germany. Springer.
Smallwood, K.S. 2016. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms: conflicts and
solutions. Pelagic Publishing. In press
Smallwood, K.S., L. Neher, and D.A. Bell. 2016. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an
example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife
and Wind Farms: conflicts and solutions. Pelagic Publishing. In press
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind
energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife
Interactions 10(1): 7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange
Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of
Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and
H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman,
A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild
Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716-
1718.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American
wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl
Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson
Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.
Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.
Smallwood CV
10
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal
trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife
Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a
wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915-
943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed
Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor
111:247-254.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality
in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of
Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and
Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71:2781-2791.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl
mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513-
1524.
Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal
activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in
Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.
Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:
Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.
Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and
integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.
Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.),
Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood CV
11
Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285-
298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania
(eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of
Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.
Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density
estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and
K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions
of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.
Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro-
ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental
Planning and Management 44:345-355.
Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont
Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power
Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)
density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.
Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.
Smallwood, K.S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and
real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.
Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered
species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.
Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of
pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density.
Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.
Smallwood CV
12
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in
clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of
the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis)
under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.
Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat
Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.
Smallwood, K.S., M.L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting
hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.
Smallwood, K.S, and C.M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian
carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.
Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K.S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare
County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of
Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
Meeting 33:88-97.
Morrison, M.L., K.S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by
wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist
17:289-295.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and
management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and
quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.
Smallwood, K.S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for
terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.
Smallwood, K.S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial,
mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.
Van Vuren, D. and K.S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in
agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.
Smallwood, K.S., B.J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an
Smallwood CV
13
agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors
in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Erichsen, A.L., K.S. Smallwood, A.M. Commandatore, D.M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White-
tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D.M.
Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press,
London.
Smallwood, K.S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across
an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.
Smallwood, K.S. and W.A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in
forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis
concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259
Smallwood, K.S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation
69:251-259.
Smallwood, K.S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist
39:67-72.
Smallwood, K.S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.
Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual
mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.
Smallwood, K.S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern
Naturalist 38:65-67.
Smallwood, K.S. and T.P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.
Biological Conservation 62:149-159.
Smallwood, K.S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of California, Davis.
Peer-reviewed Reports
Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle
Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.
Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and Bat Impacts and Behaviors at Old Wind Turbines at Forebay,
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-XXX, California Energy
Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. In press.
Smallwood CV
14
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Comparing Utilization Data for Siting New Wind Power
Generation. Report to California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research
program. In Press.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and
Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources,
Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report
Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat
Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore,
California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_
bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range
Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other
Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California
Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No.
CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/
2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind
Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research
– Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. 63 pp.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-065/CEC-500-2009-065.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds
Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy
Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Pending.
Sacramento, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public
Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento,
California. 531 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-052/2004-08-09_500-04-052.PDF
Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of
Smallwood CV
15
Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp.
Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the
Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy
Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp.
Non-Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird
Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with
Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of
Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an
International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU,
Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind
power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and
Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.
Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on
Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer
Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.
Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind
turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California.
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway.
Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26.
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers
demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November
2004:26-27, 29-30.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay.
Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and
Public Policy.” By Brian Czech And Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269-
270.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in
Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of
Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in
Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of
Smallwood CV
16
Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.
Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion
density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion
Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in
D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion
Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages
75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California
Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.
Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable
Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco,
CA 94129-0075.
Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2,
Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development,
Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-
0075.
EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and
Development Department, Woodland, California.
Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural
sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA.
Taipei, Taiwan.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages
454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management
for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium
23:105-8.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa.
California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population
census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and
Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.
Smallwood CV
17
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages
58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Phoenix.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population
levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game
and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to
SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p284_smallwood_data_needed_in_support_of_repowering_
in_the_altamont_pass_wra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/r68_smallwood
_altamont_fatality_rates_longterm.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through
2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p268_
smallwood_inter_annual_comparison_of_fatality_rates_1999_2012.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study
of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p246_
smallwood_flodesign_detection_trial_protocol.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study
through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p245_smallwood_et_al_
burrowing_owl density_2012.pdf
Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in
former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA).
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p238_smallwood_floeesign_draft_study_design_april_2012
.pdf
Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and
abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.
altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p232_smallwood_et_al_winter_owl_survey_update.pdf
Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, 2005-2011. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p231_smallwood_apwra
_use_data_2005_2011.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering
Burrowing Owls.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p229_smallwood_et_al_progress_monitoring_
Smallwood CV
18
burrowing_owl_burrow_use.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and
Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et_al_for_nextera_burrowing_owl_distri
bution_and_abundance_study.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine
in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA).
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p205_smallwood_neher_progress_on_sampling
_burrowing_owls_across_apwra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p198_smallwood_proposal_to_sample_
burrowing_owls_across_apwra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p191_smallwood_comments_on_apwra_monitoring_progra
m_update.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p189_smallwood_report_of_
apwra_fatality_rate_patterns.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area Bird Collision Study. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p190_smallwood
_review_of_december_2010_monitoring_report.pdf
Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).
Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on
Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p183_src_integrated_comments_on_nop.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p180_src_comments_on_dip.pdf
Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA
Research Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p174_smallwood_review_of_calwea_
removal_study_plan.pdf
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC
Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p168_src_comments_on_m53_mt_draft_study_plan_for_fu
ture_monitoring.pdf
Smallwood CV
19
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger
Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p171_smallwood
_kb_removal_rates_follow_up.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing
Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_
doc/p161_smallwood_assessment_of_amps.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of Additional Wind Turbine Hazard Ratings in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific
Review Committee. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p153_smallwood_estep_additional_
hazard_ratings.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p158_smallwood_response_to_memo_on_monitoring_costs
.pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and
Subsequent Actions. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p147_smallwood_summary_of_src_
recommendations_and_concerns_1_11_10.pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p148_smallwood_progress_of_avian_wildlife_protection_p
rogram_1_11_10.pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-Generation Wind Turbines Rated for Raptor Collision Hazard by
Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and
an Update on Tier Rankings. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p155_smallwood_src_
turbine_ratings_and_status.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal
Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p154_smallwood_kb_removal_
rates_041610.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.
P145_Smallwood Fatality Monitoring Results 12-31-09.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. P144 SRC Comments on 2009 Draft Monitoring Report
M21.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p129_smallwood_search_
interval_summaries_supplemental_to_m39.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. Alameda County SRC document P-111. 6
pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p111_smallwoods_review_of_m32.pdf
Smallwood CV
20
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and
Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning
Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against
Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC
Comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. Alameda County SRC document
P-107. 21 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p107_smallwood_review_of_july_2008_
monitoring_report_m21.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing Owl Carcass Distribution around Wind Turbines. Alameda
County SRC document 106. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p106_smallwood_
burrowing_owl_carcass_distribution_around_wind_turbines.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of Relocation/Removal of Altamont Pass Wind Turbines
Rated as Hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. Alameda County SRC document P-103. 10
pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p103_assessment_of_src_recommendations_to_
relocate_rated_turbines.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around
the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-102. 4 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_
doc/p102_smallwood_neher_wind_turbine_free_ridgelines.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of Mortality Estimates in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area when Restricted to Recent Fatalities. Alameda County SRC document P-
101. 14 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p101_smallwood_karas_mortality_
restricted_to_recent.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the Misapplication of Mortality Adjustment Terms to Fatalities
Missed During one Search and Found Later. Alameda County SRC document P-97. 3 pp.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p97_double_counting_of_missed_fatalities.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. Alameda County
SRC document P-88. 6 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p88_smallwood_relative_-
abundance_of_birds_offsite.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. Alameda County SRC document P-76. 19 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p76_-
mortality_estimates_apwra_2005_07.pdf
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.
Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision-
related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.
Alameda County SRC document P-70. P70 SRC Hazardous Turbine Relocation Guidelines
Smallwood CV
21
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11,
2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p67_src_turbine_selection_12_11_07.pdf
Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s Answers to Audubon’s Queries about the SRC’s
Recommended Four Month Winter Shutdown of Wind Turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda
County SRC document P-23. 7 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/s23_ss_answers_to_
audubons_queries_on_winter_shutdown_recommendation.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting Opinion on Recommendation to Approve of the
AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. 4 pp.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p60_smallwood_dissenting_opinion_awi_blade_painting_st
udy_10_2_07.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of Monitoring Duration and Inter-Annual Variability on
Precision of Wind-Turbine Caused Mortality Estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, California. SRC Document P44, 16 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p44_
smallwood_effects_of_monitoring_period_and_variability_7_26_07.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over
which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43, 5
pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p43_smallwood_on_monitoring_period_7_26_07.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p41_smallwood_response_to_p24_docs.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of
11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004.
SRC Document P26, 12 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p26_new_information_on_
fple_credits.pdf
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).
April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. 1pp.
Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and
Relocations. SRC Document P22, 5 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p22_verification_
to_tier_shutdowns_smallwood_4_15_07.pdf
Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. 4 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.
Alameda County Scientific Review Committee Replies to the Parties’ Responses to its Queries
and to Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20,
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s20_src_replies_to_parties_answers_04_03_
07.pdf. 12 pp.
Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I
& II Turbines. SRC Document S19, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s19_
Smallwood CV
22
smallwood_estimated_effects_shutdown_and_tier_1_2_removal_3_19_07.pdf. 1 pp.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the
SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16,
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s16_smallwoods_replies_to_parties_respons
e_3_9_07.pdf. 9 pp.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500
Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15,
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s15_smallwood_estimated_effects_proposed
_measures_3_8_07.pdf. 2 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7,
2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. 7 pp.
Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA
Challenges. SRC Document S5, http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/alt_settlement/s5_
smallwood_on_proposed_settlement_agreement.rtf. 5 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19,
2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the
Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization. 3 pp.
Reports to Clients
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2016. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from
repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa
Water District.
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to
NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society,
East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at
Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc.,
Waltham, Massachusetts.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at
Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra
Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at
Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to
NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at
the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF
Smallwood CV
23
Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early Assessment of Wind Turbine Layout in Summit
Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of Avian Use Survey Report for the Longboat Solar Project.
Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information Needed for Solar Project Impacts Assessment and Mitigation
Planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve,
California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park
District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines,
Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR.
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/deir/p278_smallwood_first_annual_report_of_turbine_expe
riment_forebay.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical Bird Monitoring of Burrowing Owls (Athene
cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air
Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter Surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and
burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.
Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality Rate Estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, Year One.
Unpublished report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. 19 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions at
North Sky River. Unpublished report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. 19 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve,
California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park
District. 12 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 75 pp.
Smallwood CV
24
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine
in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc. 11 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet Collision Model for the Radar Ridge
Wind Resource Area. Unpublished report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and
Wildlife Service. 17 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.
Report to Pattern Energy. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor
Collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. 13 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 68 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and Avian Issues in the Altamont Pass,
California. Report to Black & Veatch. 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor
Collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Draft Report to
the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. 39 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor
Collisions at Vasco Winds. Unpublished report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore,
California. 32 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project,
Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland,
California. 41 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach,
California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa
Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.
Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena
Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.
Smallwood CV
25
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles
Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and
California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord,
California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and
Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat
County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve,
California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay
Regional Park District. 5 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog
at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48
pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow-
billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA),
Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay,
Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter
Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert
Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter
Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert
Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the
Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland
Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord,
Smallwood CV
26
California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement –
N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team
(IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander
(2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California,
Oakland, CA. 139 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working
Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma@yolo.com . 34 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on Yellow-billed Magpie and American
Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector
Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team
(IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711-
04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland
habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement –
N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval
Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City,
CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA),
Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County,
California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT)
West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600,
Smallwood CV
27
Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.
Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on
the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions
(CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental
Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time
shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.
Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind
Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County,
Antioch, California. 22 pp.
Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth &
Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena
Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development
Department, Martinez, California.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat
assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site
30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat
assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter
Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal
projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the
Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134
pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment To Support An Adaptive Management Plan
For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial Re-assessment of An Adaptive Management Plan
For The APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp.
Smallwood CV
28
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of
priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the
APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA.
Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing
avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission,
PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in
Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and
Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.]
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement
N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp.
+ 58 figures.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial
Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission.
20 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the
Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for
Renewable Energy. 32 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp.
+ 36 figures.
Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the
effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission
lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the
Smallwood CV
29
East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.
Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution
Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.
Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study,
Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo,
California. 120 pp.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of
Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides)
Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress
report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger &
Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an
education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental
Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.
Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter
submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Preliminary Comments on the Proposed Blythe Energy Project. Submitted
to California Energy Commission on March 15 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy
(CaRE). 14 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000
Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.
Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal.
Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power
Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment
of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp.
Smallwood CV
30
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and
Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on
behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy
Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable
Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of
Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at
Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.
Morrison, M.L., K.S. .Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for
Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of
Transportation. 75 pp.
Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in
W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for
NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through
Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California Mountain Lion Track Count. Report to the Defenders of
Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New
Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National
Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of
giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation
Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison,
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland
mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher
burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C.,
Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report
Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey,
08530.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were
Smallwood CV
31
Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket
gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger &
Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and Their Management Under the Martell SYP.
Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp.
EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo
County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and
recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide
Energy Research Group, University of California.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987
California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion
population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to
California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and
R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits.
Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA.
Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County,
1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis.
Comments on Environmental Documents
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents,
including:
Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take (2016, 49 pp);
Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18 pp);
Supplementary Reply Witness Statement Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 38 pp);
Witness Statement on Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 31 pp);
Second Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6 pp);
Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 10 pp);
Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 9 pp);
Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9
pp);
Smallwood CV
32
Replies to comments 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015,
6 pp);
Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR (2015, 9 pp);
West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR(2015, 10 pp);
World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR (2015, 12 pp);
Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS (2014, 21 pp);
Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp);
Response to Comments on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp);
Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR (2014, 12 pp);
Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS (2013, 23 pp);
Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16 pp);
Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR (2013, 9 pp);
Cuyama Solar Project DEIR (2014, 19 pp);
Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49 pp);
Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR (2013, 19 pp);
Lucerne Valley Solar Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013, 12 pp);
Palen Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment of California Energy
Commission, (2014, 20 pp);
Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9 pp);
Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp);
Response to Comments on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp);
Soitec Solar Development Project Draft PEIR (2014, 18 pp);
Comment on the Biological Opinion (08ESMF-00-2012-F-0387) of Oakland Zoo expansion
on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3 pp);
West Antelope Solar Energy Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration (2013, 18 pp);
Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28 pp);
Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10 pp);
Declaration on Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (2013; 24 pp);
Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 11 pp);
Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5 pp);
Rosamond Solar Project Addendum EIR (2013; 13 pp);
Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR (2013; 13 pp);
Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration (2013; 6 pp);
Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp);
Plainview Solar Works Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp);
Reply to the County Staff’s Responses on comments to Imperial Valley Solar Company 2
Project (2013; 10 pp);
Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13 pp);
FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR (PP12232) (2013; 9 pp);
Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (3013; 6 pp);
Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project
(2013; 8 pp);
FEIS prepared for Alta East Wind Project (2013; 23 pp);
Smallwood CV
33
Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );
Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project DEIR (2013; 9 pp);
Analysis of Biological Assessment of Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda
Whipsnake (2013; 10 pp);
Declaration on Campo Verde Solar project FEIR (2013; 11pp);
Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8 pp);
Declaration on North Steens Transmission Line FEIS (2012; 62 pp);
City of Lancaster Revised Initial Study for Conditional Use Permits 12-08 and 12-09,
Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects (2012; 8 pp);
J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review (2012; 14 pp);
Reply to the County Staff’s Responses on comments to Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal
Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8 pp);
Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9 pp);
Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS (2012; 15 pp);
Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR (2012; 16 pp);
Ocotillo Sol Project EIS (2012; 4 pp);
Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2012; 5 pp);
Declaration on Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte Water District
2012 Water Transfer Program (2012; 11 pp);
Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16 pp);
City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28 pp);
Comment on Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND (2011; 9 pp);
Statement of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Regarding Proposed Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611
Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4 pp);
Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood on Biological Impacts of the Ivanpah Solar Electric
Generating System (ISEGS) (2011; 9 pp);
Comments on Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (2011; 13 pp);
Comments on Draft EIR/EA for Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project (2011; 16 pp);
Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., on Biological Impacts of the Route 84 Safety
Improvement Project (2011; 7 pp);
Rebuttal Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors
Friends of The Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area (2010; 6 pp);
Prefiled Direct Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of
Intervenors Friends of the Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area. Comments on
Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power Project DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010;
41 pp);
Evaluation of Klickitat County’s Decisions on the Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project
(2010; 17 pp);
St. John's Church Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2010; 14 pp.);
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 (2010;
20 pp);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2010;12 pp);
Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report
(2009: 9 pp);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania
Smallwood CV
34
County, Washington. Second Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and
Save Our Scenic Area (Dec 2008; 17 pp);
Comments on Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10 pp);
County of Placer’s Categorical Exemption of Hilton Manor Project (2009; 9 pp);
Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for
Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC
and PG&E (2009; 3 pp);
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142 pp);
Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 pp + addendum 2 pp);
Declaration of Shawn Smallwood in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040
(2008; 3 pp);
The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the
Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by
2020 (2008; 9 pp);
The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the
Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by
2020 (2008; 11 pp);
Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve
Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7 pp.);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania
County, Washington. Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and
Save Our Scenic Area (Sep 2008; 16 pp);
California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Colusa Generating
Station (2007; 24 pp);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008:
66 pp);
Replies to Response to Comments Re: Regional University Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report (2008; 20 pp);
Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008: 33 pp.);
Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, Negative Declaration (2008: 15 pp.);
Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2008; 157 pp.);
Yuba Highlands Specific Plan (or Area Plan) Environmental Impact Report (2006; 37 pp.);
Replies to responses to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed
Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain
(2006; 5 pp);
Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and
Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 15 pp);
Windy Point Wind Farm Environmental Review and EIS (2006; 14 pp and 36 Powerpoint
slides in reply to responses to comments);
Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR (2005; 18 pp);
Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Notice of Preparation of EIR (2004; 15 pp);
Negative Declaration of the proposed Callahan Estates Subdivision (2004; 11 pp);
Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 9 pp);
Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 13 pp);
Negative Declaration of the proposed Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 (2004; 21
Smallwood CV
35
pp);
On the petition California Fish and Game Commission to list the Burrowing Owl as
threatened or endangered (2003; 10 pp);
Conditional Use Permit renewals from Alameda County for wind turbine operations in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (2003; 41 pp);
UC Davis Long Range Development Plan of 2003, particularly with regard to the
Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23 pp);
Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003: 18 pp + 3 plates of
photos);
Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003: 6 pp);
Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002: 23 pp);
Response to testimony of experts at the East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing on
biological resources (2002: 9 pp);
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002: 7 pp);
Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002: 3 pp);
UC Merced -- Declaration of Dr. Shawn Smallwood in support of petitioner’s application
for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (2002: 5 pp);
Replies to response to comments in Final Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch
Unit III Subdivision (2003: 22 pp);
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2002: 19 pp + 8
photos on 4 plates);
California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002: 17 pp + 3
photos; follow-up report of 3 pp);
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Silver Bend Apartments, Placer County (2002: 13
pp);
UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR
(2001: 26 pp);
Initial Study, Colusa County Power Plant (2001: 6 pp);
Comments on Proposed Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001: 5 pp + 4
photos);
Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact
Report (1998: 28 pp);
Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement for Issuance of Take authorization for listed
species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego County, California (Fed. Reg. 62 (60):
14938, San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program) (1997: 10 pp);
Permit (PRT-823773) Amendment for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,
Sacramento, CA (Fed. Reg. 63 (101): 29020-29021) (1998);
Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). (Fed. Reg. 64(176):
49497-49498) (1999: 8 pp);
Review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus
californicus) (1998);
Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999: oral presentation);
California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);
Negative Declaration for the Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit (1999);
Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring
Smallwood CV
36
Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 10 pp);
California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy
Center (2000);
US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission
regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 4 pp);
California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf
Energy Center (2000: 11 pp);
Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands,
prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7 pp);
Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce
Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by
the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9 pp).
Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12 pp);
Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s
Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8 pp);
Draft Program Level EIR for Covell Village (2005; 19 pp);
Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping document (2003: 7
pp.);
NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory
(NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7 pp);
Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The
Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8 pp.);
Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35 pp.);
Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2 pp.);
Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7 pp.);
Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);
Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf
of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10 pp.);
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of
The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7 pp.);
State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);
Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10 pp);
Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act
(Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and
Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 pp + attachments);
Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).
Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The
Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
Smallwood CV
37
Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination
of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society--
Western Section (2001);
Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members
of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process
(2001);
Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal
pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western
Section (2000);
Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation
Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No.
103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188
scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives.
Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind
project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March
2015.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated
detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on
Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality
research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye
view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian
fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention,
Austin, Texas.
Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication
as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County,
California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides)
Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White
Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third
Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.
Smallwood CV
38
Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry
on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.
Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research
Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015.
From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California.
The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife
Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015.
Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California,
8 July 2015.
Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish
and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.
Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the
Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013.
Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind
power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite,
California, 12 November 2012.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California,
20 February 2012.
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff
Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission
Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific
Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife
impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.
Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The
Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife
Smallwood CV
39
Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.
Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.
California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.
Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and
Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the
Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23
February 2007.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind
farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild
Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind
farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan,
4 November 2006.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa
Barbara, 27 October 2006.
Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with
Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006.
Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The
Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006.
Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American
Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an
impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee,
Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.
American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11,
2006.
Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission,
Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005.
Smallwood CV
40
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19,
2005.
Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The
Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.
Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy
Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.
Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor
Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October
16, 2004.
Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources
Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.
The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association,
Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl
Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl
Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating
Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.
Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor
Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor
Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology,
California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.
National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.
Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the
Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Smallwood CV
41
Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western
Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for
Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.
Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for
Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.
Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture
and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.
A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern
California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.
Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological &
Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University,
Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
“No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual
Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.
In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this
episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997.
Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th
Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists
44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27,
1996.
Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion
Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.
Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference,
Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995.
Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.
Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape.
1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.
Smallwood CV
42
Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game
Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis,
February 19, 1994.
Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and
Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar
Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.
Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium,
Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993.
Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research
Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.
Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on
Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993.
Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.
Davis, August 6, 1993.
Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.
May 1993.
Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy,
California. February 1993.
Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent
system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium,
U.C. Davis. May 1990.
Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento,
California. March 1990.
Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western
Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.
A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April
1986.
The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.
Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion;
Smallwood CV
43
Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.
Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany,
March 2015.
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm,
Sweden, February 2013.
Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information
sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa,
Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim,
Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting,
Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.
Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing
perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International
Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.
Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife
Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside,
CA, January, 2000.
Smallwood CV
44
Printed Mass Media
Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op-
Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed
to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the
Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Radio/Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power
Development, August 2011.
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest
Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009;
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable
Power. 4 September 2008;
KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1
hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998;
Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000;
Smallwood CV
45
Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.
October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.
Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review)
Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist
Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports
Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.
Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health
Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Biological Control The Condor
Committees
Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area
Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis
MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento
Other Professional Activities or Products
Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky
Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I
have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist
Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified.
Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White
Pines and Amherst Island Wind Energy projects.
Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for
development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.
Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.
Smallwood CV
46
Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind
Farm.
Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice
Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001
Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984
American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977
CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City
of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002
Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates
Exhibit C
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
March 25, 2020
Paige Fennie
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Cambria Hotel Project (PLPA-2019-00020, -44)
Dear Ms. Fennie,
We have reviewed the March 2020 Hearing Notice for the Cambria Hotel Project (“Project”) located in
the City of Dublin (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 138-room hotel, totaling 89,700-SF, and
two stories of podium parking, totaling 277 spaces, on the 0.91-acre site.
Our review concludes that the Hearing Notice fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and
hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and
health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are
underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated CEQA analysis should be prepared to
adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk,
and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
As a result of our findings, the proposed Project does not qualify for an exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. 1500 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”) per §
15182 and, therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the
potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the Project may have on the
surrounding environment. We recommend that the City prepare an Initial Study with a health risk
assessment (“HRA”) as required under the Commerce Municipal Code (“CMC” or “Code”).
2
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Inadequate Analysis of Impacts
No Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site. The preparation of a
Phase I ESA is a common practice in CEQA proceedings. Phase I ESAs are routinely included in CEQA
documentation to identify hazardous waste issues that may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the
environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and
cleanup.
The lack of a Phase I ESA for the Project is inconsistent with mitigation included in the 2010 Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan which states:
MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall
prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular
development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within
the project area subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin.
Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society
for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions
indicative of releases of hazardous substances and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency
databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and
• recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.
Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (RECs) and
recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into
structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs
are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and
groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to
reduce exposure potential to the public.
Consistent with professional due diligence procedures commonly used in CEQA matters, a Phase I ESA,
completed by a licensed environmental professional is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify
recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. A Phase II ESA should be
conducted if the Phase I indicates a recognized environmental condition. Any contamination that is
identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment’s Soil Screening Numbers2, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in
1 http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm
2 http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chhsltable.html
3
coordination with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Air Quality Incorrect Reliance on Exemption per CEQA Guidelines § 15182
The Hearing Notice claims that the Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182 as a result of
consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (“DDSP”). However, this is incorrect for several
reasons.
First, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15182(a),
“Certain residential, commercial and mixed-use projects that are consistent with a specific plan
adopted pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Government Code are exempt
from CEQA”
However, review of the Hearing Notice and DDSP reveals that the Project is not exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15182, as it fails to comply with the DDSP, as demonstrated below. Incorrect Reliance on the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Review of the April 2010 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DDSP
DEIR”) reveals that the proposed Project is not consistent. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR,
“Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency
and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. For purposes of
this EIR and based on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project must satisfy the
following standards to be consistent with the BAAQMD’s 2005 Ozone Strategy and thus
result in a less than significant impact: I) Consistency with the population and vehicle miles
traveled assumptions in the Clean Air Plan; and 2) Consistency With Clean Air Plan
Transportation Control Measures;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)” (DDSP, p. 3-30).
Furthermore, according to the DDSP DEIR,
“[F]uture individual projects under the DDSP would be subject to new project-level emission
thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft CEQA Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental
review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further
reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project-by-project basis. In addition, future
4
development within the project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8,
Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)” (DDSP, pp. 68).
Thus, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP for several reasons. As a result, the Project
does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
First, the Hearing Notice fails to compare the proposed Project’s projected emissions with the
BAAQMD’s project-level emissions threshold, as is required by the DDSP DEIR. As adopted in 2010 and
since updated in 2017, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as well as the DDSP DEIR, require proposed
Projects to compare their expected emissions to the relevant thresholds of significance.3 Thus, the
Hearing Notice fails to compare project-level air quality emissions to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as
adopted. This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP. By failing
to compare the Project’s estimated emissions to the relevant BAAQMD thresholds, the Hearing Notice
fails to demonstrate consistency with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
Second, the Hearing Notice fails to compare project-level air quality emissions to the BAAQMD 2005
Ozone Strategy.4 This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP.
Without an evaluation of the Project’s compliance with the 2005 Ozone Strategy, the Hearing Notice
fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
Third, the Hearing Notice fails to compare project-level air quality emissions to the Clean Air Plan
Transportation Control Measures.5 This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not
consistent with the DDSP. Without an evaluation of the Project’s compliance with the Clean Air Plan, the
Hearing Notice fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an
exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
Fourth, the Hearing Notice fails to address Project-specific mitigation or BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3
(Architectural Coatings), as required by the DDSP DEIR. As a result, the proposed Project is inconsistent
with the DDSP and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
Finally, the proposed Project may be inconsistent with the Downtown Core Specific Plan (“DCSP”), the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan (“WDBSP”), and the Village Parkway Specific Plan (“VPSP”), as these
plans only allow for the additional development of 150 hotel rooms, as indicated by the DDSP DEIR (p. 3-
100). Review of the City of Dublin Development Projects website demonstrates that the City proposes to
3 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017 ,
available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-
pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1.
4 “Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy.” BAAQMD, Volume 1, January 2006, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2005-ozone-
strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.pdf.
5 “Final Clean Air Plan.” BAAQMD, April 2017, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 5/11, Table 5-2.
5
construct a 120-room hotel, the Tru Hotel, a 129-room hotel, the Element Hotel, and a 198-room hotel,
the Westin Hotel.6 Thus, when considered in conjunction with these other projects, the proposed
Project is inconsistent with the additional 150-room hotel development limit indicated by the DDSP
DEIR. As a result, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an
exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. SWAPE Analysis Indicates Significant Air Pollutant Emissions
In an effort to accurately determine the proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions, we
prepared a SWAPE CalEEMod model for the Project, using the Project-specific information provided by
the Hearing Notice. We included the land use types and sizes as indicated and left all other values as
defaults.
Our updated analysis demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions exceed the 54
pounds per day (lbs/day) threshold set by the BAAQMD (see table below).7
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Model VOC/ROG
SWAPE 54.8
BAAQMD Regional Threshold (lbs/day) 54
Threshold Exceeded? Yes
When modeled, the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 54
lbs/day. Our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality
impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the Hearing Notice. As a result, an EIR should
be prepared to include an updated air pollution model and analysis to adequately estimate the Project’s
construction and operational emissions and incorporate mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less
than significant level. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
Review of the Hearing Notice demonstrates that the proposed Project failed to evaluate or mention the
potential health risk impacts associated with Project activities. Without a quantified health risk
assessment (“HRA”), we cannot verify that Project-related impacts are less than significant. This is
incorrect for several reasons.
First, by failing to conduct an HRA for residential sensitive receptors located nearby the Project site, the
Project is not consistent with the DDSP DEIR. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR,
“Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency
and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: …
6 Found at: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
7 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017 ,
available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-
pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 2-2, Table 2-1.
6
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations” (DDSP, p. 3-30).
As the Project documents fail to mention or evaluate the excess health risk impacts on nearby
residential sensitive receptors to the Project site, the Project is not consistent with the DDSP. Thus, the
Project does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
Second, by failing to prepare a construction or operational HRA for existing sensitive receptors, the
Project is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health risk
assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment
Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in
March of 2015.8 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of
an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), a
human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment. The OEHHA document
recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to
nearby sensitive receptors.9 Although the Project documents fail to disclose the anticipated duration of
construction, we can reasonably assume that it will last over two months, given the Project will require
site preparation, grading, building construction and architectural coating for the new buildings, and
paving throughout the site. Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will
operate for a long period of time. During operation, the Project will generate vehicle and truck trips,
which will produce additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors
to emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than six
months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration
of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident
(“MEIR”).10 Even though the Project documents fail to provide the expected lifetime of the Project, we
can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we
recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure
duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA. Therefore, per OEHHA
guidelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction and operation be
evaluated in a CEQA analysis.
Finally, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified HRA for nearby,
existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation, the Project fails to
compare the excess health risk to the BAAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.11 Thus,
the Project cannot conclude a less than significant health risk impact resulting from Project construction
and operation without quantifying the Project’s excess cancer risk to compare to the proper threshold,
as recommended by the lead agency for the Project.
8 OEHHA (February 2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments, http://bit.ly/2sAKySW.
9 Ibid, p. 8-18.
10 Ibid., p. 8-6, 8-15
11 CITATION
7
Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts
In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, we
prepared a simple screening-level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate
that construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk
impact that was not previously identified or evaluated by the Hearing Notice.
In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a
screening-level air quality dispersion model. 12 The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in
OEHHA 13 and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)14 guidance as the
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind
concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an
unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a SWAPE CalEEMod model for the Project, using the Project-specific information provided
by the Hearing Notice. We included the land use types and sizes as indicated and left all other values as
defaults. Utilizing this model, we prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the
Project's construction and operational impacts to sensitive receptors using the annual emissions
estimates from SWAPE’s air model. Review of Google Earth demonstrates that the nearest sensitive
receptor is located less than 50 meters west of the Project site. Consistent with recommendations set
forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the third trimester of
pregnancy. We also assumed that construction and operation of the Project would occur sequentially,
with no gaps between each Project phase. Our calculated annual emissions indicate that construction
activities will generate approximately 249 pounds of DPM over a 416-day default construction period.
The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind
concentrations from point, area, and volume emissions sources. To account for the variability in
construction equipment usage over the many phases of Project construction, we calculated an average
DPM emission rate for construction by the following equation. 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 249.2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸416 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 ≈𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈𝒔𝒔�
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00315 grams per second (g/s).
Subtracting the 416-day construction duration from the total residential exposure duration of 30 years,
we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project’s operational
DPM emissions for an additional 28.86 years approximately. The operational CalEEMod model’s annual
12 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
14 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf
8
emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 44 pounds of DPM per year.
Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimated the
following emission rate for Project operation. 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 43.8 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 ≈𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒈𝒈𝒔𝒔�
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00063 g/s. Construction and
operational activity was simulated as a 0.91-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with
dimensions of 102 meters by 36 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the
height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical
dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction
distribution.
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average
concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.15 As
previously stated, there are residential receptors located approximately 50 meters from the Project
boundary. The single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is
approximately 18.74 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 1.874 µg/m3 for Project
construction at the nearest residential sensitive receptor. For Project operation, the single-hour
concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 3.75 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind.
Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.375
µg/m3 for Project operation at the nearest residential sensitive receptor.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors located closest to the Project site using
applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the BAAQMD. Consistent with the CalEEMod
default construction schedule for the Project, the annualized average concentration for construction
was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.89 years of the infantile
stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the
remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the infantile stage of life (2
– 16 years), child stage of life (2 – 16 years) and adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). Consistent with
OEHHA and BAAQMD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (“ASFs”) to account for the heightened
15 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” EPA, 1992, available
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf; see also “Risk Assessment
Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36.
9
susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution. 16, 17 According to the most
updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third
trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) and should be multiplied by a factor
of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth
by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.18 Finally, according to BAAQMD
guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”) value of 0.85 for the 3rd trimester and infant
receptors, 0.72 for child receptors, and 0.73 for the adult receptors.19 We used a cancer potency factor
of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure
to the sensitive receptor was assumed to begin in the third trimester to provide the most conservative
estimate of air quality hazards. The results of our calculations are shown below.
The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Activity Duration
(years)
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing
Rate (L/kg-
day)
Cancer Risk
without
ASFs*
ASF
Cancer
Risk with
ASFs*
Construction 0.25 1.874 361 2.2E-06 10 2.2E-05
3rd Trimester
Duration 0.25 2.2E-06
3rd
Trimester
Exposure
2.2E-05
Construction 0.89 1.874 1090 2.3E-05 10 2.3E-04
Operation 1.11 0.375 1090 5.8E-06 10 5.8E-05
Infant Exposure
Duration 2.00 2.9E-05 Infant
Exposure 2.9E-04
Operation 14.00 0.375 572 3.3E-05 3 9.8E-05
Child Exposure
Duration 14.00 3.3E-05 Child
Exposure 9.8E-05
Operation 14.00 0.375 261 1.5E-05 1 1.5E-05
Adult Exposure
Duration 14.00 1.5E-05 Adult
Exposure 1.5E-05
16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
17 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p.
5-15.
18 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-
assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19.
“Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf
19 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines.” BAAQMD, January 2016, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/rules-and-regs/workshops/2016/reg-2-5/hra-
guidelines_clean_jan_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
10
Lifetime Exposure
Duration 30.00 7.9E-05 Lifetime
Exposure 4.3E-04
* We, along with CARB and BAAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd
trimester of pregnancy at the closest residential receptor located approximately 50 meters away, over
the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 15,
98, 290, and 22 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential
lifetime (30 years), utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 430 in one million. The infant, child,
and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. Utilizing age sensitivity factors is
the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and
recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table
above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, the
excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the
maximally exposed residential receptor, located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of
Project construction and operation, without age sensitivity factors, are approximately 15, 33, 29, and 2.2
in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at
the maximally exposed residential receptor, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 79 in one
million. The child and lifetime cancer risks, without age sensitivity factors, exceed the BAAQMD
threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed
or identified. While we recommend the use of age sensitivity factors, health risk impacts exceed the
BAAQMD threshold regardless.
An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the
health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to
be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 20 The purpose of the screening-level
construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project’s emissions
and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project
could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-
to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening-level construction HRA indicates a
potentially significant impact, the City should prepare a CEQA analysis with a revised HRA which makes a
reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to
nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an
updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health
risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
20 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5
11
Failure to Consider Impacts from Nearby Projects
Furthermore, the Hearing Notice fails to evaluate the cumulative health risk posed to nearby sensitive
receptors. Additionally, the DDSP DEIR failed to evaluate the health risk posed to nearby sensitive
receptors as a result of construction and operation of the entire Specific Plan area. As a result, the
cumulative risk posed to the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed Project in conjunction with the
surrounding existing and foreseeable sources of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) is unknown. Therefore,
the proposed Project may result in a significant health risk impact that has not been evaluated by the
Hearing Notice or the DDSP DEIR.
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15355, “‘Cumulative impacts’" refers to two or more individual effects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts”.21 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(1) goes onto say,
“The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time”.22
Thus, in addition to the Project’s individual health risk impact significance, the proposed Project may
also result in a cumulatively considerable impact when considered in conjunction with the construction
and operation of nearby proposed projects. For example, the City of Dublin proposes to construct
several other projects near the site, including: the proposed Corrie Center SDR (Office Building), the
proposed Saint Patrick Way SDR, the proposed Fountainhead Montessori, the proposed building at 7505
Dublin Boulevard SDR, as well as the proposed Randeri 7400 Amador Valley Boulevard SDR. In addition,
the Project site is located in close proximity to several existing projects, including: the Holiday Inn Hotel,
a Shell gas station, a Chevron gas station, Xpress Dry Cleaners, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Dublin Collision
Repair auto body shop, Kelly-Moore Paints, as well as several schools and residential apartment and
condo buildings.
Therefore, construction and operation of the Cambria Hotel Project will occur in conjunction with the
construction and operation of these other proposed and existing projects. Per CEQA Guidance, the
cancer risk associated with these existing sources should be quantified and assessed with the lifetime
cancer risk of the Project. Failure to quantify the cumulative risk leads to an underestimation of the
actual risk posed to the nearby sensitive receptors. Prior to Project Approval, the cumulative health risk
should be evaluated and compared to BAAQMD thresholds in a project-specific EIR.
21“CEQA Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts.” California Department of Transportation, March, 2016,
available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative_guidance/ceqa_guidelines.htm
22 “CEQA Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts.” California Department of Transportation, March, 2014,
available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative_guidance/ceqa_guidelines.htm
12
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts
As previously discussed, the proposed Project incorrectly claims exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§ 15182. However, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP, as stated in the Hearing
Notice. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR,
“Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency
and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: …
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact will result if a
Specific Plan conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction
measures under AB 32; and/or conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases” (DDSP, p. 3-30).
The DDSP DEIR goes on to state,
“Future projects within the City, including within the project area, would be reviewed on a
project-by-project basis to ensure their compliance with the City’s policies and to determine if
any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR” (DDSP, pp. 78).
Thus, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP for several reasons.
First, the Project documents fail to demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact on the
environment. Without an evaluation of the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas impacts we are unable to
verify that the proposed Project will not result in a significant impact. Rather, our analysis, detailed
below, indicates that the proposed Project may result in a significant GHG impact not previously
identified or addressed in the Hearing Notice or DDSP.
Second, AB 32 is outdated and no longer applies to the Project. As AB 32 only contained reduction goals
through 2020, it does not apply to the proposed Project, that is not expected to begin construction until
at least mid-2020.23 Without any further reduction goals beyond 2020, this does not apply to the
proposed Project.
Third, the Project fails to conduct a project-specific GHG analysis evaluating applicable plans, policies,
and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. As a result, we
cannot verify that the Project has less than significant GHG impacts. Thus, we recommend that the
Project not be approved until further analysis and potential mitigation measures are evaluated and
disclosed for the Project.
23 “Assembly Bill No. 32.” available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-
0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf, p. 89.
13
Screening Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact
Applicable thresholds and modeling demonstrate that the proposed Project may result in a potentially
significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the Hearing Notice. The CalEEMod
output files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project-specific information as disclosed in the Hearing Notice,
quantify the Project’s emissions, which include approximately 380 MT CO2e/year of total construction
emissions (sum of emissions from 2020 and 2021) and approximately 1,570 MT CO2e/year of annual
operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile, waste, and water-related emissions). When we
compare the Project’s GHG emissions, including construction emissions amortized over 30 years and
operational emissions, to the BAAQMD bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year,24 we find that the
Project’s GHG emissions exceed the threshold (see table below).
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase
Proposed
Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 12.65
Area 0.0079
Energy 579.46
Mobile 941.52
Waste 37.99
Water 10.7
Total 1,582.33
Threshold 1,100
Exceed? Yes
As demonstrated in the table below, the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,582 MT
CO2e/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD’s 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold. Hence, a service population
analysis is warranted. According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is
defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”25
Review of the DDSP EIR demonstratres that Retail/Office land uses, including “[s]hopping centers,
stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and auto part sales,” are
expected to have an employee density of 200 to 450-SF per employee. Thus, conservatively assuming
450-SF per employee, the Project would result in approximately 199 new jobs. As the Project does not
propose any residential land uses, we assumed that the Project will not result in any new residents.
Thus, the Project is estimated to have a service population of 199.26 When dividing the Project’s GHG
emissions by a service population value of 199 people, we find that the Project would emit
24 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p.
2-4.
25 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf.
26 Calculated: (199 employees) + (0 residents) = (199 service population).
14
approximately 8 MT CO2e/SP/year.27 The BAAQMD regularly utilizes a substantial progress population
efficiency target goal of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year for target year 2030.28 Using this threshold, we find that
the Project would result in a potentially significant GHG impact (see table below).
SWAPE Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Annual Emissions 1,582.33
Service Population 199
Service Population Efficiency 7.95
Threshold 2.6
Exceed? Yes
As the table above demonstrates, when correct input parameters are used to model Project emissions,
the Project’s total GHG emissions exceed the “Substantial Progress” efficiency threshold for 2030 of 2.6
MT CO2e/SP/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously assessed or identified in the
Hearing Notice. As a result, an updated GHG analysis should be prepared in a Project-specific EIR and
additional mitigation should be incorporated into the Project. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled, construction emissions would
result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified
and incorporated in an updated EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level.
Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants such as
particulate matter and NOx.29 DPM and NOx are a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion and are emitted
by on-road vehicles and by off-road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions
should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions.30
27 Calculated: (1,582.33 MT CO2e/year) / (199 service population) = (7.95 MT CO2e/SP/year).
28 “Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016,
available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 40; see also Santa Clara University
Housing Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment, October 2019, available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=45718; see also Facebook Campus Expansion Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report, City of Menlo Park, May 2016, available at:
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/10286/Ch03-05_GHG_Draft-EIR?bidId=
29http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
30 For measures to reduce operational DPM emissions, see section titled “Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures
Available to Reduce Operational Emissions” on p. 25 of this letter. These measures would effectively reduce
operational VOC and NOx emissions, DPM emissions, as well as GHG emissions.
15
Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures
The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel
emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that
contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: 31
• All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.
• All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend 32 approved by the original engine manufacturer
with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less.
Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines
The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA’s newer standards is limited.33
Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing
equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.34 These actions include but are not
limited to:
• Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the
body of the equipment intact).
Engine repower may be a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a
long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine.
Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large
construction machines.35 Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines
or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels. The original engine is taken out of
service and a new engine with reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission
reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine’s ability to
accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer
engines or higher tier engines are not necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project
Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure
the repower product is reducing emissions for DPM.36
• Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards.
31 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
32 Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with
biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf
33http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf
34http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf
35 Repair, Rebuild, and Repower, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-
technologies-clean-diesel#repair
36 Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/420p11001.pdf
16
Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel
equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher
locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders.
Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.37 Replacements often
require some re-engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are
benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.38
Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment
PM emissions from alternatively-fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing
retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit
devices for engine exhaust after-treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce
emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. 39 It should be noted that actual emissions
reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications.
Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment
CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures40 report also proposes the use of electric
and/or hybrid construction equipment to mitigate DPM emissions. When construction equipment is
powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced
with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when
construction equipment is powered by hybrid-electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also
greatly reduced. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as
Peterson Pacific Corporation,41 which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders
and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid-electric drives is also commercially available
from companies such as Caterpillar.42 For example, Caterpillar reports that during an 8-hour shift, its
D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a
10.3 percent increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a
conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.43 Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the
make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project-
specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour.
37 Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm#fact
38 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-technologies-
clean-diesel#cleaner
39 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-
technologies-clean-diesel#retrofit
40http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
41 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at:http://www.petersoncorp.com/wp-
content/uploads/peterson_electric_grinders1.pdf
42 Electric Power Products, available at:http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-
generation.html
43http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
17
Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System
CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures44 report recommends that the Project
Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to
ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such
as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower,
manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the
equipment. Specifically, for each on-road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or
generator, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a report prior to bringing said
equipment on site that includes:45
• Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.
• The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer,
and EPA/CARB verification number/level.
• The Certification Statement 46 signed and printed on the contractor’s letterhead.
Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a monthly report that, for
each on-road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 47
• Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site
date.
• Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
• Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
o Source of supply
o Quantity of fuel
o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight)
In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Project implement the following mitigation
measures, called “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,”48 that are recommended by the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD):
1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off-
road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an
aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.
• The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected
hours of use for each piece of equipment.
44http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
45 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
46 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf The
NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A.
47 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
48http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl_10-2013.pdf
18
• The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including
start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman.
• This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject
heavy-duty off-road equipment.
• The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the
project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no
construction activity occurs.
2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating
that the heavy-duty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction
project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-
average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent
California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.
• This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.
• Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-
emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, and/or other options as they become available.
• The District’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment
fleet that achieves this reduction.
3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel-powered
equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in
any one hour.
• Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately. Non-compliant equipment will be documented and a summary
provided to the lead agency monthly.
• A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.
• A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the
duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any
30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall
include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.
4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine
compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or
regulations.
Use of Spray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies
Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic
spray, high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc. in order to
maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of
coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process,
expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of
19
either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP
spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.49
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting equipment into the
Project’s construction fleet, which subsequently reduces construction emissions. A revised EIR should be
prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment
to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions.
Furthermore, the updated EIR should demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these
measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project’s construction-related emissions are
reduced to the maximum extent possible. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project’s air quality and GHG emissions may result in potentially
significant impacts. In an effort to reduce the Project’s operational emissions, we identified several
mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in
CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as
well as criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter emissions.50 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s
operational emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Integrate affordable and below market rate housing
• Energy-related mitigation:
o Install programmable thermostat timers
o Establish onsite renewable energy systems, including solar power and wind power
o Limit outdoor lighting requirements
o Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the
hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
o Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide
information on energy management services for large energy users.
o Meet “reach” goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use.
o Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes.
o Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.
o Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation
systems and avoid peak energy use.
o Prohibit gas powered landscape equipment and implement electric yard equipment
compatibility
• Transportation-related mitigation:
o Provide EV parking
o Require residential area parking permits
o Implement ride-sharing, vanpool, shuttle, bike-sharing programs
49 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/spray-equipment-transfer-efficiency
50 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
20
o Provide bike parking near transit
o Provide local shuttles
o Implement area or cordon pricing
o Install a park-and-ride lot
• Water-related mitigation:
o Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to
infiltrate on-site.
o Install a system to reutilize gray water
o Use locally-sourced water supply
o Plant native and drought-resistant trees and vegetation
• Develop and follow a “green streets guide” that requires:
o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt;
o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.51
• Implement Project design features such as:
o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight;
o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane;
o Install formaldehyde-free insulation; and
o Use recycled-content gypsum board.
o Require all buildings to become “LEED” and “WELL” certified.
• Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
Finally, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various feasible
mitigation measures that would reduce on-site area emissions that are applicable to the proposed
Project’s retail land use, and include, but are not limited to:52
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized.
• Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution
system.
• Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows.
• Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. An
updated EIR should be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an
updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to
reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR also should demonstrate commitment to the
51 Cool Houston Plan;
http://www.harcresearch.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/CoolHoustonPlan_0.pdf
52 Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016.
21
implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant
emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - According to Project documents.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 277.00 Space 2.49 110,800.00 0
Hotel 138.00 Room 0.91 89,700.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,376.00 89,700.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.60 0.91
Cambria Hotel
Alameda County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 1 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.2706 2.5346 2.0421 4.2600e-
003
0.1487 0.1246 0.2733 0.0593 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 377.7093 377.7093 0.0696 0.0000 379.4499
2021 0.5707 0.7361 0.7047 1.4700e-
003
0.0286 0.0347 0.0633 7.7600e-
003
0.0326 0.0404 0.0000 129.9392 129.9392 0.0231 0.0000 130.5174
Maximum 0.5707 2.5346 2.0421 4.2600e-
003
0.1487 0.1246 0.2733 0.0593 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 377.7093 377.7093 0.0696 0.0000 379.4499
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.2706 2.5346 2.0421 4.2600e-
003
0.1487 0.1246 0.2733 0.0593 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 377.7090 377.7090 0.0696 0.0000 379.4496
2021 0.5707 0.7361 0.7047 1.4700e-
003
0.0286 0.0347 0.0633 7.7600e-
003
0.0326 0.0404 0.0000 129.9391 129.9391 0.0231 0.0000 130.5173
Maximum 0.5707 2.5346 2.0421 4.2600e-
003
0.1487 0.1246 0.2733 0.0593 0.1168 0.1761 0.0000 377.7090 377.7090 0.0696 0.0000 379.4496
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 2 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.4069 3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Energy 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 576.8432 576.8432 0.0215 6.9700e-
003
579.4572
Mobile 0.2729 1.8048 2.7635 0.0102 0.7704 9.7000e-
003
0.7801 0.2071 9.1100e-
003
0.2162 0.0000 940.4381 940.4381 0.0435 0.0000 941.5244
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.3360 0.0000 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1106 5.9064 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Total 0.6975 1.9654 2.9022 0.0112 0.7704 0.0219 0.7923 0.2071 0.0213 0.2284 16.4466 1,523.195
1
1,539.641
6
1.0857 9.7200e-
003
1,569.678
1
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 3-23-2020 6-22-2020 1.0127 1.0127
2 6-23-2020 9-22-2020 0.8464 0.8464
3 9-23-2020 12-22-2020 0.8402 0.8402
4 12-23-2020 3-22-2021 0.7619 0.7619
5 3-23-2021 6-22-2021 0.6118 0.6118
Highest 1.0127 1.0127
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 3 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.4069 3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Energy 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 576.8432 576.8432 0.0215 6.9700e-
003
579.4572
Mobile 0.2729 1.8048 2.7635 0.0102 0.7704 9.7000e-
003
0.7801 0.2071 9.1100e-
003
0.2162 0.0000 940.4381 940.4381 0.0435 0.0000 941.5244
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.3360 0.0000 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1106 5.9064 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Total 0.6975 1.9654 2.9022 0.0112 0.7704 0.0219 0.7923 0.2071 0.0213 0.2284 16.4466 1,523.195
1
1,539.641
6
1.0857 9.7200e-
003
1,569.678
1
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 4 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/23/2020 4/17/2020 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/18/2020 4/24/2020 5 5
3 Grading Grading 4/25/2020 5/6/2020 5 8
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/7/2020 3/24/2021 5 230
5 Paving Paving 3/25/2021 4/19/2021 5 18
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/20/2021 5/13/2021 5 18
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 134,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 44,850; Striped Parking Area: 6,648
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 2.49
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 5 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 6 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e-
004
0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e-
003
0.0000 34.2386
Total 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e-
004
0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e-
003
0.0000 34.2386
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 84.00 33.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 7 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.2000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0543 1.0543 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0550
Total 5.2000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0543 1.0543 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0550
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e-
004
0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e-
003
0.0000 34.2385
Total 0.0331 0.3320 0.2175 3.9000e-
004
0.0166 0.0166 0.0154 0.0154 0.0000 33.9986 33.9986 9.6000e-
003
0.0000 34.2385
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 8 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.2000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0543 1.0543 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0550
Total 5.2000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.0543 1.0543 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0550
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0452 0.0000 0.0452 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.0000e-
004
5.4900e-
003
5.4900e-
003
5.0500e-
003
5.0500e-
003
0.0000 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e-
003
0.0000 8.4253
Total 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.0000e-
004
0.0452 5.4900e-
003
0.0507 0.0248 5.0500e-
003
0.0299 0.0000 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e-
003
0.0000 8.4253
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 9 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.1800e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3163 0.3163 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3165
Total 1.6000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.1800e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3163 0.3163 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3165
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0452 0.0000 0.0452 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.0000e-
004
5.4900e-
003
5.4900e-
003
5.0500e-
003
5.0500e-
003
0.0000 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e-
003
0.0000 8.4252
Total 0.0102 0.1060 0.0538 1.0000e-
004
0.0452 5.4900e-
003
0.0507 0.0248 5.0500e-
003
0.0299 0.0000 8.3577 8.3577 2.7000e-
003
0.0000 8.4252
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 10 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.1800e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3163 0.3163 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3165
Total 1.6000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.1800e-
003
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
0.0000 3.6000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.3163 0.3163 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3165
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0262 0.0000 0.0262 0.0135 0.0000 0.0135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.7200e-
003
0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
5.0900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
0.0000 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e-
003
0.0000 10.5078
Total 9.7200e-
003
0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e-
004
0.0262 5.0900e-
003
0.0313 0.0135 4.6900e-
003
0.0182 0.0000 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e-
003
0.0000 10.5078
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 11 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.4217 0.4217 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4220
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.4217 0.4217 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4220
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0262 0.0000 0.0262 0.0135 0.0000 0.0135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.7200e-
003
0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
5.0900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
0.0000 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e-
003
0.0000 10.5078
Total 9.7200e-
003
0.1055 0.0642 1.2000e-
004
0.0262 5.0900e-
003
0.0313 0.0135 4.6900e-
003
0.0182 0.0000 10.4235 10.4235 3.3700e-
003
0.0000 10.5078
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 12 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.4217 0.4217 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4220
Total 2.1000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.4217 0.4217 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4220
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1813 1.6404 1.4406 2.3000e-
003
0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 198.0265 198.0265 0.0483 0.0000 199.2343
Total 0.1813 1.6404 1.4406 2.3000e-
003
0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 198.0265 198.0265 0.0483 0.0000 199.2343
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 13 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0106 0.3317 0.0715 7.8000e-
004
0.0185 1.5400e-
003
0.0201 5.3600e-
003
1.4700e-
003
6.8300e-
003
0.0000 74.6316 74.6316 4.2900e-
003
0.0000 74.7389
Worker 0.0248 0.0183 0.1879 5.6000e-
004
0.0568 3.9000e-
004
0.0572 0.0151 3.6000e-
004
0.0155 0.0000 50.4791 50.4791 1.3000e-
003
0.0000 50.5117
Total 0.0354 0.3500 0.2594 1.3400e-
003
0.0753 1.9300e-
003
0.0773 0.0205 1.8300e-
003
0.0223 0.0000 125.1107 125.1107 5.5900e-
003
0.0000 125.2505
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1813 1.6404 1.4405 2.3000e-
003
0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 198.0263 198.0263 0.0483 0.0000 199.2341
Total 0.1813 1.6404 1.4405 2.3000e-
003
0.0955 0.0955 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 198.0263 198.0263 0.0483 0.0000 199.2341
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 14 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0106 0.3317 0.0715 7.8000e-
004
0.0185 1.5400e-
003
0.0201 5.3600e-
003
1.4700e-
003
6.8300e-
003
0.0000 74.6316 74.6316 4.2900e-
003
0.0000 74.7389
Worker 0.0248 0.0183 0.1879 5.6000e-
004
0.0568 3.9000e-
004
0.0572 0.0151 3.6000e-
004
0.0155 0.0000 50.4791 50.4791 1.3000e-
003
0.0000 50.5117
Total 0.0354 0.3500 0.2594 1.3400e-
003
0.0753 1.9300e-
003
0.0773 0.0205 1.8300e-
003
0.0223 0.0000 125.1107 125.1107 5.5900e-
003
0.0000 125.2505
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0561 0.5143 0.4890 7.9000e-
004
0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 68.3330 68.3330 0.0165 0.0000 68.7451
Total 0.0561 0.5143 0.4890 7.9000e-
004
0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 68.3330 68.3330 0.0165 0.0000 68.7451
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 15 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 3.0100e-
003
0.1041 0.0221 2.7000e-
004
6.3900e-
003
2.2000e-
004
6.6100e-
003
1.8500e-
003
2.1000e-
004
2.0600e-
003
0.0000 25.5028 25.5028 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 25.5379
Worker 7.9100e-
003
5.6400e-
003
0.0591 1.9000e-
004
0.0196 1.3000e-
004
0.0197 5.2100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
5.3300e-
003
0.0000 16.8126 16.8126 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 16.8226
Total 0.0109 0.1098 0.0811 4.6000e-
004
0.0260 3.5000e-
004
0.0263 7.0600e-
003
3.3000e-
004
7.3900e-
003
0.0000 42.3154 42.3154 1.8000e-
003
0.0000 42.3605
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0561 0.5143 0.4890 7.9000e-
004
0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 68.3329 68.3329 0.0165 0.0000 68.7451
Total 0.0561 0.5143 0.4890 7.9000e-
004
0.0283 0.0283 0.0266 0.0266 0.0000 68.3329 68.3329 0.0165 0.0000 68.7451
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 16 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 3.0100e-
003
0.1041 0.0221 2.7000e-
004
6.3900e-
003
2.2000e-
004
6.6100e-
003
1.8500e-
003
2.1000e-
004
2.0600e-
003
0.0000 25.5028 25.5028 1.4000e-
003
0.0000 25.5379
Worker 7.9100e-
003
5.6400e-
003
0.0591 1.9000e-
004
0.0196 1.3000e-
004
0.0197 5.2100e-
003
1.2000e-
004
5.3300e-
003
0.0000 16.8126 16.8126 4.0000e-
004
0.0000 16.8226
Total 0.0109 0.1098 0.0811 4.6000e-
004
0.0260 3.5000e-
004
0.0263 7.0600e-
003
3.3000e-
004
7.3900e-
003
0.0000 42.3154 42.3154 1.8000e-
003
0.0000 42.3605
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.8500e-
003
0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e-
004
5.2100e-
003
5.2100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
0.0000 14.7336 14.7336 4.6300e-
003
0.0000 14.8493
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 9.8500e-
003
0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e-
004
5.2100e-
003
5.2100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
0.0000 14.7336 14.7336 4.6300e-
003
0.0000 14.8493
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 17 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.7000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4300e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2213 1.2213 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2220
Total 5.7000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4300e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2213 1.2213 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2220
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.8500e-
003
0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e-
004
5.2100e-
003
5.2100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
0.0000 14.7335 14.7335 4.6300e-
003
0.0000 14.8493
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 9.8500e-
003
0.0976 0.1103 1.7000e-
004
5.2100e-
003
5.2100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
4.8100e-
003
0.0000 14.7335 14.7335 4.6300e-
003
0.0000 14.8493
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 18 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.7000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4300e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2213 1.2213 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2220
Total 5.7000e-
004
4.1000e-
004
4.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4300e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2213 1.2213 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2220
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.9700e-
003
0.0137 0.0164 3.0000e-
005
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.3019
Total 0.4928 0.0137 0.0164 3.0000e-
005
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.3019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 19 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.9000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
3.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.0381 1.0381 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0387
Total 4.9000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
3.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.0381 1.0381 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0387
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.9700e-
003
0.0137 0.0164 3.0000e-
005
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.3019
Total 0.4928 0.0137 0.0164 3.0000e-
005
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.3019
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 20 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.9000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
3.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.0381 1.0381 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0387
Total 4.9000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
3.6500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.0381 1.0381 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0387
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 21 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2729 1.8048 2.7635 0.0102 0.7704 9.7000e-
003
0.7801 0.2071 9.1100e-
003
0.2162 0.0000 940.4381 940.4381 0.0435 0.0000 941.5244
Unmitigated 0.2729 1.8048 2.7635 0.0102 0.7704 9.7000e-
003
0.7801 0.2071 9.1100e-
003
0.2162 0.0000 940.4381 940.4381 0.0435 0.0000 941.5244
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693
Total 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.560371 0.039285 0.190378 0.108244 0.016023 0.005202 0.023981 0.045200 0.002184 0.002561 0.005524 0.000326 0.000721
Hotel 0.560371 0.039285 0.190378 0.108244 0.016023 0.005202 0.023981 0.045200 0.002184 0.002561 0.005524 0.000326 0.000721
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 22 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 402.0795 402.0795 0.0182 3.7600e-
003
403.6550
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 402.0795 402.0795 0.0182 3.7600e-
003
403.6550
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
175.8022
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
175.8022
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 23 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 3.27495e
+006
0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
175.8022
Total 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
175.8022
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 3.27495e
+006
0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
175.8022
Total 0.0177 0.1605 0.1349 9.6000e-
004
0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 174.7636 174.7636 3.3500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
175.8022
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 24 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
649288 188.8853 8.5400e-
003
1.7700e-
003
189.6254
Hotel 732849 213.1942 9.6400e-
003
1.9900e-
003
214.0295
Total 402.0795 0.0182 3.7600e-
003
403.6550
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
649288 188.8853 8.5400e-
003
1.7700e-
003
189.6254
Hotel 732849 213.1942 9.6400e-
003
1.9900e-
003
214.0295
Total 402.0795 0.0182 3.7600e-
003
403.6550
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 25 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4069 3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Unmitigated 0.4069 3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0491 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.3575 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.6000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Total 0.4069 3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 26 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0491 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.3575 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.6000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Total 0.4069 3.0000e-
005
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.9000e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 27 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Unmitigated 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 3.50061 /
0.388957
7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Total 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 28 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 3.50061 /
0.388957
7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Total 7.0170 0.1143 2.7500e-
003
10.6945
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Unmitigated 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 29 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 75.55 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Total 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 75.55 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Total 15.3360 0.9063 0.0000 37.9942
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 30 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:25 PMPage 31 of 31
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - According to Project documents.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 277.00 Space 2.49 110,800.00 0
Hotel 138.00 Room 0.91 89,700.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,376.00 89,700.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.60 0.91
Cambria Hotel
Alameda County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 1 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1423 42.4579 22.1811 0.0432 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,228.196
4
4,228.196
4
1.1957 0.0000 4,245.541
3
2021 54.8141 21.0961 19.4579 0.0429 0.9136 0.9704 1.8840 0.2474 0.9123 1.1598 0.0000 4,194.817
4
4,194.817
4
0.6822 0.0000 4,211.8717
Maximum 54.8141 42.4579 22.1811 0.0432 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,228.196
4
4,228.196
4
1.1957 0.0000 4,245.541
3
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1423 42.4579 22.1811 0.0432 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,228.196
4
4,228.196
4
1.1957 0.0000 4,245.541
3
2021 54.8141 21.0961 19.4579 0.0429 0.9136 0.9704 1.8840 0.2474 0.9123 1.1598 0.0000 4,194.817
4
4,194.817
4
0.6822 0.0000 4,211.8717
Maximum 54.8141 42.4579 22.1811 0.0432 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,228.196
4
4,228.196
4
1.1957 0.0000 4,245.541
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 2 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Energy 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Mobile 1.8063 10.1364 16.1348 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 4.6366 1.2275 0.0520 1.2795 6,263.451
0
6,263.451
0
0.2705 6,270.213
7
Total 4.1348 11.0164 16.9162 0.0669 4.5812 0.1224 4.7036 1.2275 0.1190 1.3465 7,319.125
0
7,319.125
0
0.2910 0.0194 7,332.166
5
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Energy 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Mobile 1.8063 10.1364 16.1348 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 4.6366 1.2275 0.0520 1.2795 6,263.451
0
6,263.451
0
0.2705 6,270.213
7
Total 4.1348 11.0164 16.9162 0.0669 4.5812 0.1224 4.7036 1.2275 0.1190 1.3465 7,319.125
0
7,319.125
0
0.2910 0.0194 7,332.166
5
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 3 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/23/2020 4/17/2020 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/18/2020 4/24/2020 5 5
3 Grading Grading 4/25/2020 5/6/2020 5 8
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/7/2020 3/24/2021 5 230
5 Paving Paving 3/25/2021 4/19/2021 5 18
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/20/2021 5/13/2021 5 18
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 134,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 44,850; Striped Parking Area: 6,648
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 2.49
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 4 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 5 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 84.00 33.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 6 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 7 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 8 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0659 0.0405 0.5135 1.5100e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.8500e-
003
150.4614
Total 0.0659 0.0405 0.5135 1.5100e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.8500e-
003
150.4614
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 0.0000 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 0.0000 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 9 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0659 0.0405 0.5135 1.5100e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.8500e-
003
150.4614
Total 0.0659 0.0405 0.5135 1.5100e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 150.3651 150.3651 3.8500e-
003
150.4614
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 10 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 0.0000 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 11 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e-
003
125.3845
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 12 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1214 3.8350 0.7788 9.2200e-
003
0.2236 0.0179 0.2415 0.0644 0.0171 0.0815 973.4295 973.4295 0.0530 974.7534
Worker 0.3073 0.1891 2.3962 7.0400e-
003
0.6900 4.6100e-
003
0.6947 0.1830 4.2500e-
003
0.1873 701.7038 701.7038 0.0180 702.1534
Total 0.4287 4.0241 3.1750 0.0163 0.9136 0.0225 0.9361 0.2474 0.0214 0.2688 1,675.133
3
1,675.133
3
0.0709 1,676.906
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 13 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1214 3.8350 0.7788 9.2200e-
003
0.2236 0.0179 0.2415 0.0644 0.0171 0.0815 973.4295 973.4295 0.0530 974.7534
Worker 0.3073 0.1891 2.3962 7.0400e-
003
0.6900 4.6100e-
003
0.6947 0.1830 4.2500e-
003
0.1873 701.7038 701.7038 0.0180 702.1534
Total 0.4287 4.0241 3.1750 0.0163 0.9136 0.0225 0.9361 0.2474 0.0214 0.2688 1,675.133
3
1,675.133
3
0.0709 1,676.906
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 14 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0998 3.4953 0.6946 9.1300e-
003
0.2236 7.2600e-
003
0.2309 0.0644 6.9500e-
003
0.0713 964.0964 964.0964 0.0501 965.3482
Worker 0.2838 0.1687 2.1882 6.8000e-
003
0.6900 4.4600e-
003
0.6945 0.1830 4.1100e-
003
0.1871 677.3571 677.3571 0.0161 677.7593
Total 0.3836 3.6640 2.8827 0.0159 0.9136 0.0117 0.9254 0.2474 0.0111 0.2585 1,641.453
5
1,641.453
5
0.0662 1,643.107
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 15 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0998 3.4953 0.6946 9.1300e-
003
0.2236 7.2600e-
003
0.2309 0.0644 6.9500e-
003
0.0713 964.0964 964.0964 0.0501 965.3482
Worker 0.2838 0.1687 2.1882 6.8000e-
003
0.6900 4.4600e-
003
0.6945 0.1830 4.1100e-
003
0.1871 677.3571 677.3571 0.0161 677.7593
Total 0.3836 3.6640 2.8827 0.0159 0.9136 0.0117 0.9254 0.2474 0.0111 0.2585 1,641.453
5
1,641.453
5
0.0662 1,643.107
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 16 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0676 0.0402 0.5210 1.6200e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 161.2755 161.2755 3.8300e-
003
161.3713
Total 0.0676 0.0402 0.5210 1.6200e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 161.2755 161.2755 3.8300e-
003
161.3713
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 17 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0676 0.0402 0.5210 1.6200e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 161.2755 161.2755 3.8300e-
003
161.3713
Total 0.0676 0.0402 0.5210 1.6200e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 161.2755 161.2755 3.8300e-
003
161.3713
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 18 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0574 0.0341 0.4428 1.3800e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e-
003
137.1656
Total 0.0574 0.0341 0.4428 1.3800e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e-
003
137.1656
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 19 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0574 0.0341 0.4428 1.3800e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e-
003
137.1656
Total 0.0574 0.0341 0.4428 1.3800e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 137.0842 137.0842 3.2600e-
003
137.1656
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 20 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.8063 10.1364 16.1348 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 4.6366 1.2275 0.0520 1.2795 6,263.451
0
6,263.451
0
0.2705 6,270.213
7
Unmitigated 1.8063 10.1364 16.1348 0.0616 4.5812 0.0554 4.6366 1.2275 0.0520 1.2795 6,263.451
0
6,263.451
0
0.2705 6,270.213
7
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693
Total 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.560371 0.039285 0.190378 0.108244 0.016023 0.005202 0.023981 0.045200 0.002184 0.002561 0.005524 0.000326 0.000721
Hotel 0.560371 0.039285 0.190378 0.108244 0.016023 0.005202 0.023981 0.045200 0.002184 0.002561 0.005524 0.000326 0.000721
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 21 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 22 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 8972.46 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 8.97246 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 23 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Unmitigated 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2690 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.9588 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.9500e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Total 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 24 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2690 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.9588 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.9500e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Total 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 25 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:26 PMPage 26 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - According to Project documents.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 277.00 Space 2.49 110,800.00 0
Hotel 138.00 Room 0.91 89,700.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,376.00 89,700.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.60 0.91
Cambria Hotel
Alameda County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 1 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1452 42.4677 22.1572 0.0424 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,145.458
0
4,145.458
0
1.1955 0.0000 4,162.909
9
2021 54.8165 21.1629 19.4425 0.0421 0.9136 0.9706 1.8842 0.2474 0.9126 1.1600 0.0000 4,114.250
6
4,114.2506 0.6863 0.0000 4,131.408
1
Maximum 54.8165 42.4677 22.1572 0.0424 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,145.458
0
4,145.458
0
1.1955 0.0000 4,162.909
9
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1452 42.4677 22.1572 0.0424 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,145.458
0
4,145.458
0
1.1955 0.0000 4,162.909
9
2021 54.8165 21.1629 19.4425 0.0421 0.9136 0.9706 1.8842 0.2474 0.9126 1.1600 0.0000 4,114.2506 4,114.2506 0.6863 0.0000 4,131.408
1
Maximum 54.8165 42.4677 22.1572 0.0424 18.2141 2.1984 20.4125 9.9699 2.0225 11.9924 0.0000 4,145.458
0
4,145.458
0
1.1955 0.0000 4,162.909
9
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 2 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Energy 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Mobile 1.5468 10.4269 16.7635 0.0577 4.5812 0.0560 4.6372 1.2275 0.0526 1.2801 5,870.178
8
5,870.178
8
0.2859 5,877.326
7
Total 3.8753 11.3069 17.5448 0.0630 4.5812 0.1230 4.7042 1.2275 0.1196 1.3471 6,925.852
9
6,925.852
9
0.3064 0.0194 6,939.279
5
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Energy 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Mobile 1.5468 10.4269 16.7635 0.0577 4.5812 0.0560 4.6372 1.2275 0.0526 1.2801 5,870.178
8
5,870.178
8
0.2859 5,877.326
7
Total 3.8753 11.3069 17.5448 0.0630 4.5812 0.1230 4.7042 1.2275 0.1196 1.3471 6,925.852
9
6,925.852
9
0.3064 0.0194 6,939.279
5
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 3 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/23/2020 4/17/2020 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/18/2020 4/24/2020 5 5
3 Grading Grading 4/25/2020 5/6/2020 5 8
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/7/2020 3/24/2021 5 230
5 Paving Paving 3/25/2021 4/19/2021 5 18
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/20/2021 5/13/2021 5 18
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 134,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 44,850; Striped Parking Area: 6,648
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 2.49
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 4 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 5 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 84.00 33.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 6 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Total 3.3121 33.2010 21.7532 0.0388 1.6587 1.6587 1.5419 1.5419 0.0000 3,747.704
9
3,747.704
9
1.0580 3,774.153
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 7 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 8 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0687 0.0504 0.4849 1.3900e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.6100e-
003
138.4578
Total 0.0687 0.0504 0.4849 1.3900e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.6100e-
003
138.4578
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 2.1974 2.1974 2.0216 2.0216 0.0000 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Total 4.0765 42.4173 21.5136 0.0380 18.0663 2.1974 20.2637 9.9307 2.0216 11.9523 0.0000 3,685.101
6
3,685.101
6
1.1918 3,714.897
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 9 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0687 0.0504 0.4849 1.3900e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.6100e-
003
138.4578
Total 0.0687 0.0504 0.4849 1.3900e-
003
0.1479 9.9000e-
004
0.1489 0.0392 9.1000e-
004
0.0401 138.3675 138.3675 3.6100e-
003
138.4578
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 10 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.5523 1.2734 7.8258 3.3675 1.1716 4.5390 0.0000 2,872.485
1
2,872.485
1
0.9290 2,895.710
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 11 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e-
003
0.1232 8.2000e-
004
0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e-
004
0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e-
003
115.3815
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 12 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1276 3.8725 0.9016 8.9700e-
003
0.2236 0.0182 0.2418 0.0644 0.0174 0.0818 946.6798 946.6798 0.0584 948.1390
Worker 0.3206 0.2352 2.2626 6.4800e-
003
0.6900 4.6100e-
003
0.6947 0.1830 4.2500e-
003
0.1873 645.7151 645.7151 0.0169 646.1365
Total 0.4482 4.1077 3.1643 0.0155 0.9136 0.0228 0.9364 0.2474 0.0216 0.2690 1,592.395
0
1,592.395
0
0.0752 1,594.275
5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063
1
2,553.063
1
0.6229 2,568.634
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 13 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1276 3.8725 0.9016 8.9700e-
003
0.2236 0.0182 0.2418 0.0644 0.0174 0.0818 946.6798 946.6798 0.0584 948.1390
Worker 0.3206 0.2352 2.2626 6.4800e-
003
0.6900 4.6100e-
003
0.6947 0.1830 4.2500e-
003
0.1873 645.7151 645.7151 0.0169 646.1365
Total 0.4482 4.1077 3.1643 0.0155 0.9136 0.0228 0.9364 0.2474 0.0216 0.2690 1,592.395
0
1,592.395
0
0.0752 1,594.275
5
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 14 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1056 3.5210 0.8085 8.8800e-
003
0.2236 7.4900e-
003
0.2311 0.0644 7.1700e-
003
0.0716 937.5716 937.5716 0.0553 938.9527
Worker 0.2960 0.2098 2.0588 6.2500e-
003
0.6900 4.4600e-
003
0.6945 0.1830 4.1100e-
003
0.1871 623.3152 623.3152 0.0150 623.6911
Total 0.4016 3.7308 2.8673 0.0151 0.9136 0.0120 0.9256 0.2474 0.0113 0.2587 1,560.886
7
1,560.886
7
0.0703 1,562.643
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363
9
2,553.363
9
0.6160 2,568.764
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 15 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1056 3.5210 0.8085 8.8800e-
003
0.2236 7.4900e-
003
0.2311 0.0644 7.1700e-
003
0.0716 937.5716 937.5716 0.0553 938.9527
Worker 0.2960 0.2098 2.0588 6.2500e-
003
0.6900 4.4600e-
003
0.6945 0.1830 4.1100e-
003
0.1871 623.3152 623.3152 0.0150 623.6911
Total 0.4016 3.7308 2.8673 0.0151 0.9136 0.0120 0.9256 0.2474 0.0113 0.2587 1,560.886
7
1,560.886
7
0.0703 1,562.643
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 16 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0705 0.0499 0.4902 1.4900e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e-
003
148.4979
Total 0.0705 0.0499 0.4902 1.4900e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e-
003
148.4979
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0940 10.8399 12.2603 0.0189 0.5788 0.5788 0.5342 0.5342 0.0000 1,804.552
3
1,804.552
3
0.5670 1,818.727
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 17 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.6 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0705 0.0499 0.4902 1.4900e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e-
003
148.4979
Total 0.0705 0.0499 0.4902 1.4900e-
003
0.1643 1.0600e-
003
0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e-
004
0.0446 148.4084 148.4084 3.5800e-
003
148.4979
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 18 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0599 0.0425 0.4167 1.2700e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 126.1471 126.1471 3.0400e-
003
126.2232
Total 0.0599 0.0425 0.4167 1.2700e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 126.1471 126.1471 3.0400e-
003
126.2232
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 54.5377 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Total 54.7566 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e-
003
0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 19 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0599 0.0425 0.4167 1.2700e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 126.1471 126.1471 3.0400e-
003
126.2232
Total 0.0599 0.0425 0.4167 1.2700e-
003
0.1397 9.0000e-
004
0.1406 0.0370 8.3000e-
004
0.0379 126.1471 126.1471 3.0400e-
003
126.2232
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 20 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.5468 10.4269 16.7635 0.0577 4.5812 0.0560 4.6372 1.2275 0.0526 1.2801 5,870.178
8
5,870.178
8
0.2859 5,877.326
7
Unmitigated 1.5468 10.4269 16.7635 0.0577 4.5812 0.0560 4.6372 1.2275 0.0526 1.2801 5,870.178
8
5,870.178
8
0.2859 5,877.326
7
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693
Total 1,127.46 1,130.22 821.10 2,059,693 2,059,693
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.560371 0.039285 0.190378 0.108244 0.016023 0.005202 0.023981 0.045200 0.002184 0.002561 0.005524 0.000326 0.000721
Hotel 0.560371 0.039285 0.190378 0.108244 0.016023 0.005202 0.023981 0.045200 0.002184 0.002561 0.005524 0.000326 0.000721
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 21 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 22 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 8972.46 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 8.97246 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Total 0.0968 0.8797 0.7389 5.2800e-
003
0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 0.0669 1,055.583
2
1,055.583
2
0.0202 0.0194 1,061.856
0
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 23 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Unmitigated 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2690 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.9588 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.9500e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Total 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 24 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2690 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.9588 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.9500e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Total 2.2317 3.9000e-
004
0.0424 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0908 0.0908 2.4000e-
004
0.0968
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 25 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/23/2020 2:27 PMPage 26 of 26
Cambria Hotel - Alameda County, Winter
Start date and time 03/23/20 14:33:11
AERSCREEN 16216
CambriaHotel_Construction
CambriaHotel_Construction
----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION -----------------
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** --------------- ----------------
Emission Rate: 0.315E-02 g/s 0.250E-01 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 102.00 meters 334.65 feet
Area Source Width: 36.00 meters 118.11 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 60939
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2020.03.23_CambriaHotel_AERSCREEN_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 03/23/20 14:34:09
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 03/23/20 14:34:15
REFINE started 03/23/20 14:34:15
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 03/23/20 14:34:17
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 03/23/20 14:34:19
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT
REF TA HT
0.14634E+02 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17065E+02 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18744E+02 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.18855E+02 52.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10602E+02 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66920E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47640E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36386E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29086E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24025E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20319E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17521E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15320E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13565E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12131E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10944E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99422E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90893E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83573E+00 425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77220E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71671E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66785E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62454E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58593E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55117E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51984E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49139E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46548E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44185E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42022E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40149E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38319E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36629E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35063E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33610E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32259E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30999E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29821E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28719E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27686E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26715E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25802E+00 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24941E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24130E+00 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23362E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22637E+00 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21949E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21296E+00 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20677E+00 1175.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20088E+00 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19527E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18994E+00 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18484E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17999E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17534E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17090E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16666E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16259E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15869E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15495E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15136E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14791E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14459E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14141E+00 1550.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13834E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13538E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13254E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12979E+00 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12715E+00 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12459E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12212E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11974E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11743E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11520E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11304E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11096E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10893E+00 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10698E+00 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10508E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10323E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10145E+00 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99716E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98034E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96399E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.94812E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93270E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.91770E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90311E-01 2150.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88893E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87512E-01 2200.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86168E-01 2224.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.84860E-01 2250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83585E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82343E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81133E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79954E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78804E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77682E-01 2400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76587E-01 2425.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75519E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74477E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73459E-01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72465E-01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71494E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70545E-01 2575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69618E-01 2600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68712E-01 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67826E-01 2650.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66960E-01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66113E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65284E-01 2725.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64473E-01 2750.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63679E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62902E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62141E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61396E-01 2850.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60667E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59952E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59252E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58566E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57893E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57234E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56587E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55953E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55332E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54722E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54124E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53537E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52961E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52395E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51840E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51295E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50760E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50235E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49719E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49212E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48714E-01 3375.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48224E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47743E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47270E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46806E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46349E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45899E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45458E-01 3550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45023E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44596E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44176E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43762E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43356E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42955E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42561E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42174E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41792E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41416E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41046E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40682E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40323E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39970E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39622E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39280E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38942E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38610E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38282E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37959E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37641E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37327E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37018E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36713E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36413E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36117E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35825E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35537E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35253E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34973E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34697E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34424E-01 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34155E-01 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33890E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33629E-01 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33370E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33116E-01 4475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32864E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32616E-01 4525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32371E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32130E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31891E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31655E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31423E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31193E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30966E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30743E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30522E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30303E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30088E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29874E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29664E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29456E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29251E-01 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29048E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28848E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28649E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28454E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Start date and time 03/23/20 14:35:04
AERSCREEN 16216
CambriaHotel_Operation
CambriaHotel_Operation
----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION -----------------
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** --------------- ----------------
Emission Rate: 0.630E-03 g/s 0.500E-02 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 102.00 meters 334.65 feet
Area Source Width: 36.00 meters 118.11 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 60939
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2020.03.23_CambriaHotel_AERSCREEN_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 03/23/20 14:35:57
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 03/23/20 14:36:04
REFINE started 03/23/20 14:36:04
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 03/23/20 14:36:05
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 03/23/20 14:36:07
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT
REF TA HT
0.29274E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34138E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37496E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.37719E+01 52.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21209E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13387E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95302E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72789E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58186E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48060E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40648E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35050E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30648E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27136E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24268E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21894E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19889E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18183E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16718E+00 425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15448E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14337E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13360E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12494E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11721E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11026E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10399E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98301E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93117E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88390E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.84063E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80317E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76656E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73275E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70143E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67237E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64533E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62011E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59656E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57452E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55384E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53443E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51616E-01 1000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49895E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48271E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46735E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45284E-01 1100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43908E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42603E-01 1149.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41364E-01 1175.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40185E-01 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39064E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37996E-01 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36977E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36006E-01 1300.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35077E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34189E-01 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33339E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32525E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31745E-01 1425.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30997E-01 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30279E-01 1475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29589E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28926E-01 1525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28288E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27674E-01 1575.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27083E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26514E-01 1625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25965E-01 1650.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25435E-01 1675.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24924E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24430E-01 1725.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23953E-01 1750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23492E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23046E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22614E-01 1825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22197E-01 1850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21792E-01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21400E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21020E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20652E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20295E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19948E-01 2000.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19611E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19284E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18967E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18658E-01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18358E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18066E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17783E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17507E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17238E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16976E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16721E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16472E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16230E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15995E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15764E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15540E-01 2400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15321E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15107E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14899E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14695E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14496E-01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14302E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14112E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13927E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13746E-01 2625.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13568E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13395E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13226E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13060E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12898E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12739E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12583E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12431E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12282E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12136E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11993E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11853E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11716E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11581E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11449E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11320E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11193E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11069E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10947E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10827E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10710E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10595E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10482E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10371E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10262E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10154E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10049E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.99461E-02 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98446E-02 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.97450E-02 3375.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96471E-02 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95508E-02 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.94562E-02 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93633E-02 3475.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.92719E-02 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.91820E-02 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90937E-02 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90068E-02 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89213E-02 3600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88372E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87545E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86731E-02 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85931E-02 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85143E-02 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.84367E-02 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83603E-02 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82852E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82112E-02 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81383E-02 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80666E-02 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79959E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79263E-02 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78578E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77902E-02 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77237E-02 4000.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76582E-02 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75936E-02 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75299E-02 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74672E-02 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74053E-02 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73444E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72843E-02 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72250E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71666E-02 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71090E-02 4250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70522E-02 4275.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69962E-02 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69409E-02 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68864E-02 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68326E-02 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67796E-02 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67273E-02 4425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66756E-02 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66247E-02 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65744E-02 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65247E-02 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64757E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64274E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63797E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63325E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62860E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62401E-02 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61947E-02 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61499E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61057E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60620E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60189E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59763E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59342E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58926E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58515E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58110E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57708E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57312E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56921E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001
-1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine
years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science
Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from
perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of
the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement
actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working
with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the
application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt
has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of
Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
• Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
• Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
• Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports
since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water
resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic
hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the
local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and
implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins
and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.
• Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former
Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
• Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
• Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.
• Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.
• Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
• Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
2
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
• Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
3
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports,
conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very
concerned about the impact of designation.
4
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
• Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
• Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
• Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
• Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
5
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
• Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
• Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in
Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐
2011.
9
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
October 2015 1 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education:
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on VOC filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience:
Dr. Rosenfeld is the Co-Founder and Principal Environmental Chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise
(SWAPE). His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological
restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling, oil spills, boilers,
incinerators and other industrial and agricultural sources relating to nuisance and personal injury. His project
experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing petroleum, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile
organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, MtBE, fuel
oxygenates and odor. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated greenhouse gas emissions using various modeling programs
recommended by California Air Quality Management Districts.
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Bureau of Land Management, Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist
October 2015 2 Rosenfeld CV
Publications:
Chen, J. A., Zapata, A R., Sutherland, A. J., Molmen, D. R,. Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing,
Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). Anatomy of an Odor Wheel. Water Science and Technology.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007). The use of an odor wheel classification for
evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities. Water Science And Technology.
October 2015 3 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
October 2015 4 Rosenfeld CV
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
October 2015 5 Rosenfeld CV
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
October 2015 6 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
October 2015 7 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993.
October 2015 8 Rosenfeld CV
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September, 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants
Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico
Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward
DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
October 2015 9 Rosenfeld CV
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Aiken
David Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number: 2007-CP-02-1584
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana
Roger Price, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Roy O. Martin, L.P., et al., Defendants.
Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division
Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Carolyn Baker, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Chevron Oil Company, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 1:05 CV 227
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2008
In the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Craig Steven Arabie, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 07-2738 G
In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana
Leon B. Brydels, Plaintiffs, vs. Conoco, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2004-6941 Division A
In the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District
Linda Faust, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Witco Chemical Corporation
A/K/A Witco Corporation, Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. and Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendants.
Case Number 153-212928-05
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2006, October 2007
Rosenfeld Trial: January 2008
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino
Leroy Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Nutro Products, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants.
John Loney, Plaintiff, vs. James H. Didion, Sr.; Nutro Products, Inc.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case Number VCVVS044671
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2009
Rosenfeld Trial: March 2010
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
October 2015 10 Rosenfeld CV
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles
Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley, Plaintiffs, vs. Peter T. Hoss, as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust;
Plains Exploration & Production Company, a Delaware corporation; Rayne Water Conditioning, Inc., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case Number SC094173
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2008, October 2008
In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch
Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm, et al., all individually, Plaintiffs, vs. Unocal Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation; Chevron Corporation, a
California corporation; ConocoPhillips, a Texas corporation; Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma
corporation; and DOES 1 though 100, Defendants.
Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299)
Rosenfeld Deposition: January 2008
In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas
Harry Stephens Farms, Inc, and Harry Stephens, individual and as managing partner of Stephens
Partnership, Plaintiffs, vs. Helena Chemical Company, and Exxon Mobil Corp., successor to Mobil
Chemical Co., Defendants.
Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM)
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division
Rhonda Brasel, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Civil Action Number 07-4037
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2010
Rosenfeld Trial: October 2010
In the District Court of Texas 21st Judicial District of Burleson County
Dennis Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company, Defendant.
Case Number 25,151
Rosenfeld Trial: May 2009
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
Exhibit D
March 24, 2020
Mr. Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Cambria Hotel Project, Dublin P20004
Dear Mr. Drury:
At your request, I have reviewed the proposal to approve the 138 room hotel and
2 levels of parking to be shared with an adjacent existing office building (the
“Project”) under exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines § 15182 and the presumption that impacts of the proposed Project
were disclosed and mitigated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (the “DDSP DEIR”). My review is specific to the
Traffic and Circulation.
My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic
Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering
practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and
performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections
of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental
Quality Act. My professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are
summarized below.
The Conditions for Approving the Project Without CEQA Review Are Not
Met
The Project, at least arguably, meets the conditions for eligibility for CEQA
exemption under Guidelines §15182 with one exception. Guidelines § 15182
provide that to qualify for said exemption, none of the conditions defined in
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 2
Guidelines § 15162 can prevail. However, there is substantial evidence that the
conditions of “changed circumstances” as defined in Guidelines § 15162 exist with
regard to traffic and circulation
The Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the DDSP DEIR was circulated in February,
2010. The DEIR for the DDSP was circulated in September, 2010. The DDSP FEIR
was certified and the DDSP was incorporated into the Dublin General Plan by
update on July 22, 2011. The DDSP Traffic and Circulation analysis relies on an
existing traffic data base going back to 2008 and its impact and mitigation findings
are based on forecasts of Near Term traffic to 2015 and Cumulative traffic to year
2035. The 2015 analysis is based on existing traffic counts, estimated traffic from a
limited set of entitled projects, 6 within the Project area itself, 4 elsewhere in Dublin
and 3 others in nearby areas of Pleasanton and San Ramon, the Project itself, and
an estimate of regional traffic growth through the Project study area to 2015. The
2035 analysis is estimated from Project generated traffic and general plan based
modeled traffic estimates for the area.
The problem with the DEIR analyses is that many additional major projects have
been approved in Dublin alone since 2010, many of them not on the entitled projects
list in the DEIR and many of them requiring General Plan Amendments, so not
reflected in either the 2015 or 2035 analyses. In fact, there have been a total of 12
development projects requiring General Plan Amendments approved in Dublin
between 2010 and 2018; the statistics for 2019 and beyond have not yet been
posted on the City web site. This is to say nothing of major nearby project approvals
in adjacent cities such as the Costco project on Johnson Drive in Pleasanton or
pipeline projects in the planning process within Dublin.
For example, The Boulevard, a project in Dublin formerly known as Dublin
Crossings, involves development of up to 1995 residential dwelling units and
supporting facilities on a portion of the former Camp Parks military reservation
that was approved under a 6-2-15 General Plan Amendment after a planning
process of several years. It appears that no traffic from this significant project, that
according to its own EIR would generate 22047 net daily and 2393 net PM peak
hour trips 1, was considered in the DDSP EIR, since development of the Camp Parks
property was not reflected in the General Plan or specific area plans previously.
The Boulevard (Dublin Crossing). The City may argue that The Boulevard (Dublin
Crossings ) project was not a certainty when the NOP for the DDSP EIR was issued,
and therefore did not need to be considered in the DDSP EIR. But that is exactly the
point. The Boulevard and other projects like it that were insufficiently certain or
unknown at the time the DDSP EIR was prepared but that are now approved and in
some cases are under construction or partially completed and occupied constitute
changed circumstances that would likely increase traffic impacts or their severity
over the disclosures in the DDSP EIR.
1 See Dublin Crossings Specific Plan Draft EIR, Table 3.12-7.
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 3
The Dublin Kaiser Permanente Medical Complex, which was approved in 2016 by
General Plan Amendment, is another significant example of a significant
development in Dublin that was not considered in the DDSP EIR. The Kaiser project
includes development of 470,000 square feet of medical office and commercial floor
area that is currently in operation in 2020 and expansion to a medical complex of
1.150,000 square feet floor area by 2035. The Kaiser EIR projects that the 2020
phase of the project would generate 16.570 new daily and 1560 new PM peak hour
trips while the 2035 stage of development would generate a total of 41,140 net new
daily and 3,998 net new PM peak hour trips.
The Dublin IKEA project constitutes a mixed situation. The project, 410,000 square
feet of commercial that includes a 317,000 square foot IKEA store would, according
to its EIR, generate 9,630 net new trips daily and 1,018 net new PM peak hour trips.
The project was approved in November, 2018 but a General Plan Amendment
envisioning an IKEA store on the site was approved considerably earlier, in 2005.
What this means is that the IKEA project was not explicitly considered in the DDSP
EIR near term (2015) analysis, to the extent that the General Plan Amendment was
representative of the actual IKEA project approved, it would have been reflected in
the DDSP EIR 2035 analysis.
The recently approved Costco project on Johnson Drive off Stoneridge Drive in
Pleasanton includes an ultimate buildout of 246,440 square feet of general retail,
148,000 square feet of club retail with fueling (Costco), 27,550 square feet of general
light industrial and a 150 room hotel. The project is estimated to generate 15,740
net new weekday trips and 743 weekday trips in the PM peak hour.
The Zeiss Innovation project in Dublin, involving 433,090 square feet of purported
Research and Development Buildings to support a work force of 1500 persons
and parking totaling 1396 spaces, was approved based on a 2003 General Plan
Amendment intended to permit a large Cisco Systems research and
development project campus that never was built. Neither Zeiss nor the Cisco
project was specifically considered in the DDSP EIR near term traffic analysis.
Although the 2035 DDSP EIR traffic analysis may have reflected the 2003 Dublin
General Plan Amendment involved, there is a subtlety to the Zeiss project that
was probably not reflected. This is the fact that the employee density of the
Zeiss project, 288.7 square feet of gross floor area per employee or 3.46
employees per thousand square feet of gross floor area is far more characteristic
of “office” use than “research and development” which generally involves very
large floor areas per employee. The key consideration is that, according to ITE
Trip Generation, 10th Edition, research and development use generates only .42
trips per thousand square feet of floor area in the AM peak hour of street traffic
and .49 trips in the PM peak hour whereas office use generates 1.16 trips per
thousand square feet of floor area in the AM peak hour of street traffic and 1.15
trips in the PM peak hour. In other words, what is being built at Zeiss is office
and it generates 2.76 times more AM peak traffic and 2.35 times more PM peak
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 4
traffic than the R&D land use category under which it was approved and would
have been considered in the DDSP EIR 2035 cumulative analysis.
Other very large projects that have very large potential traffic consequences for
Dublin and the Tri-Valley area but which are still in the planning/environmental
review/approvals stage are the Grand View and At Dublin projects. The Grand View
project is a 122 acre development that would construct up to approximately
2,392,000 square feet of retail/commercial/office use and 338 residential dwelling
units on a site east of Fallon Road in Dublin. This project is still in the early
planning stage but is clearly not reflected in either stage of traffic analysis in the
DDSP EIR. The current At Dublin project has been scaled back to 566
residential units and 240,000 square feet of commercial. Environmental review
has been completed and the project awaits Dublin City Council action on
approvals.
These major projects together with numerous nameless smaller projects not
individually mentioned herein but which can be reviewed on the City web site at
Dublin-development.icitywork.com, were clearly not considered or not fully
considered in the DDSP EIR traffic analysis. Hence, there are changed
conditions that preclude reliance on the DDSP EIR and exemption from further
CEQA review under Guidelines § 15182 and § 15162.
Conclusion
Given these considerations, it is inappropriate for the Project to be approved
under an exemption from CEQA review. A full EIR should be prepared.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
Attachment 1
Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 5
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 6
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface
bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus
development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal
terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit
Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of
three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco
International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and
San Diego Lindberg.
Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco;
and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical
centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse
and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts
throughout western United States.
Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special
event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking
feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking .
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop
techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.),
Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential
traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo
County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and
experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on
neighborhood traffic control.
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on
bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene,
Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective
retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984.
Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979.
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control
Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research
Record 570, 1976.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with
Donald Appleyard, 1979.