Anaheim City Council
May 29, 2025

SALT states thatfocusing solely onevacuation misses thepoint andiscontrary tothecity’sownwildfire strategy.

What strategy might thatbeinlightofthefactthattheFireChief, thePolice Chief andCityStaff oppose this project.

Finally, LucilleKring, StephenFaesselandothershavereceivedcompensationfortheirsupportforthisproject. Whoelse intheAnaheimmightbebenefitingfromthisproject?
Itismalpractice forourCityCouncil toagree toincrease thefiredanger forthe citizen’sliving inAnaheim Hills.

Youareresponsible tothecitizens ofthiscitynotadeveloper thatlives safely 10+ hours away. 1 Susana Barrios
From: Francisca Klos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: PublicComment; [email protected]; Norma C. Kurtz; CarlosA. Leon; [email protected]; Natalie Meeks; CityManager
Cc: RobbieKrueger; TomKlos; William Klos
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Developmentnet
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

GooddayCityCouncilMembersandManager,
IstronglyurgeyoutovotetoNOTallowtheDeerCanyonDevelopmenttoproceedasplanned. Igenerally believepropertyowners' rightsshouldbeconsideredforuseoftheirland, butthisgroupknewzoning lawswhentheypurchasedtheproperty. Theyarenowpushingforachangetothoseexistingzoninglaws.

Thosechangeswillnegativelyaffectallresidentsofthisarea, butevenmoregreatlytheirimmediate neighborsandtheirrights.

Thisdevelopment willnothaveapositiveimpactonourCanyonarea. OurcurrentDeerCanyonPreserve andwildlifewillbegreatlythreatened. Throughtheyearswehaveencroachedonthelandinthisarea greatlyandtheanimalshavesuffered. Manyoftheirpopulationshavebeendiminishedandmanyothers nolongerexistinthisarea. Thisdevelopment wouldfurtherdiminishopenspaceforthemandforcurrent residents. OurschoolswillalsobeimpactedbytheDeerCanyonProject. Theincreasednumberof residentswilladdstudentsthattherewon'tbeadequatespaceandteachersfor. Additionally, trafficwill increaseandresidents' safetywilldiminish. Intheeventoffire, evacuationrouteswillbeimpededand gridlockwillhappen. Asitiscurrently, whenthereisanaccidentorslowdownonthe91fwythereis gridlockonSantaAnaCanyonRoadandthroughsomeoftheresidentialneighborhoods. Safetyhas alreadybeenandissueforresidentswhocouldnotleavetheirdrivewaysbecauseofthetrafficcreated whenGoogleandAppleMapsreroutedriverstotheirroads. WiththeincreaseinresidentsthattheDeer CanyonProjectwilladdthiswillonlygetworse. Thezoningthereshouldnotbechanged.

TheCanyonisnottheplaceforthisdevelopment. Igrewuphereandwatchedthelandchangefrom orchardsandrollinghillstothecommunityitisnow. Cowsandotherwildliferoamedfreelyhere. Growth ofcourseispartofprogressandhomesandbusinessesarepartofthatprocess, butthisarea, wherethe DeerCanyonProject istryingtobuild, isoneofthefewrefugesthatremainfortheanimalshereandfor thosewholiketowalkthepreservestrailsandgetaglimpseofwhattheareawaslikeinthepast.

Whenyouvotepleaseconsiderhowthislargedevelopmentanditsscopewillaffecttheimmediate neighboring areaofsinglefamilyhomes, aswellas, thelargerareaofsurrounding residents. Please considerthenegativeimpactitwillhaveonthearea'strafficand residents' safetyintheeventof evuation. Consideritsimpactonareaschools, wildlifeandopenspace. Considerallthenegatives... 1 Don'tvotebasedonthedeveloper'spreviousconnectionswithAnaheimCity anditsmembers. Don't votebasedontheirthreatoflawsuits. WeoftheAnaheimHillsCommunitymatter. Voteforus! VOTENO!
Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration,
FranciscaK. Klos
Anaheim, 92807
SentfromAT&TYahooMailonAndroid
2 Susana Barrios
From: Rebecca Davis <rebecca@lozeaudrury. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 202410:17AM
To: PublicComment; Nicholas J. Taylor
Cc: KylahStaley
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Comments onAgenda Item31 - HillsPreserve Project Attachments: 2024.10.29SAFER Comments - HillsPreserve Project.pdf Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

PleasefindtheattachedcommentsofSupportersAllianceforEnvironmental Responsibilityrelatedto theSALTHillsPreserveProjectbeingconsideredbytheCityCounciltonightasAgendaItem31.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
RebeccaL. Davis
Lozeau | DruryLLP
1939HarrisonSt., Suite150
Oakland, CA94612
Office: 510.836.4200
Direct: 510.230.0400
Mobile:
[email protected]
ConfidentialityNotice: Thismessageandanyattachment(s) maycontainprivilegedorconfidentialinformation. Unauthorizedinterception, review, useordisclosureisprohibitedbylaw. Ifyoureceivedthistransmissioninerror, pleasenotifythesenderbyreplye-mailanddelete themessageandanyattachments. Thankyou.
1 October 29, 2024
Via Email
Ashleigh E. Aitken, Mayor
Norma Campos Kurtz, Mayor Pro Tem
Jose Diaz, District 1 Councilmember
Carlos A. Leon, District 2 Councilmember
Natalie Rubalcava, District 3 Councilmember
Stephen Faessel, District 5 Councilmember
Natalie Meeks, District 6 Councilmember
City of Anaheim City Council
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
publiccomment@anaheim. net
Nicholas Taylor
Principal Planner
Planning and Building Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
njtaylor@anaheim. net
Re: Comment on Hills Preserve Project Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023080600) Item No. 31, October 29, 2024 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz, Honorable Councilmembers, and Mr. Taylor:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“ SAFER”) regarding the Hills Preserve Project (“ Project”) and the Environmental Impact Report (“ EIR”) prepared for the Project. The Project will require a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan, Zoning reclassification, Zoning Code amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Final Plan, Discretionary Tree Removal Permit, and Development Agreement to build six single- family detached residential lots, 498 wrap- style apartment units, and 80,000 square feet of commercial space. The Project sits on an approximately 76-acre site with East Santa Ana Canyon Road and Highway 91 to the north, South Eucalyptus Drive to the west, and Festival Drive to the east in the City of Anaheim. This letter supplements SAFER’ s letter dated September 30, 2024, which is incorporated in its entirety.

SAFER has retained multiple experts to review the Project’ s greenhouse gas, wildfire and evacuation, biological, and air quality impacts. Air quality expert, Patrick Sutton, P.E., of the environmental consulting firm Baseline Environmental Consulting, reviewed the Project’ s greenhouse gas impacts. Mr. Sutton’ s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A. Evacuation and emergency planning expert, Kevin Weinisch, P.E., of KLD Associates reviewed the Project’ s wildfire evacuation impacts. Mr. Weinisch comments and CV are attached as Exhibit B. Shawn Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

Smallwood, Ph.D., reviewed the Project’ s biological impacts. Dr. Smallwood’ s comments are attached as Exhibit, C, D, and E. Air quality experts Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D, and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg, of the consulting firm Soil, Water, Air Protection Enterprises (“ SWAPE”) reviewed the Project’ s air quality impacts. Dr. Rosenfeld’ s and Mr. Hagemann’ s comments and CVs are attached as Exhibit F.

LEGAL STANDARD
I. CEQA and Environmental Impact Report
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. ( 14 CCR § 15002( a)( 1).) “ Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘ protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ( 1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “ feasible” by requiring “ environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. ( 14 CCR § 15002( a)( 2) and ( 3); see also Berkeley Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Cmrs. ( 2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1349,1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ( 1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) except in certain limited circumstances. ( See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA.

Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD ( 1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. The EIR is an “ environmental alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” ( Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield ( 2004), 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “ document of accountability,” intended to “ demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” ( Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “ identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” ( 14 CCR § 15002( a)( 2).) Critical to this purpose, the EIR must contain an “ accurate and stable project description.” ( County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles ( 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192-93 (“ An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”) The project description must contain ( a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project, ( b) a statement of the project objectives, and ( c) a general description of the project' s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics. ( 14 CCR § 15124.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

The California Supreme Court has emphasized that:

When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR ( 1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [ citation omitted] . . .

Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno ( 2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 ( 2018) [ citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at 405].) The Court in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also emphasized that another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR “ makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’ s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” ( Id. at 510.) “ Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” Id. at 516.)
Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “ a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘ detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” ( Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 516 [ citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield ( 2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197].) “ The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’ s factual conclusions.” ( Id. at 516.) As the Court emphasized:

W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question.

A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.

Id. at 514.) Additionally, “ in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project.” Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency ( 2004) 116 Cal.App. 4th 1099, 1109.)
II. Mitigation Measures
In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. ( 14 CCR § 15370.) Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. ( 14 CCR § 15126. 4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.

If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “ eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “ acceptable due to overriding concerns.” ( Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092( b)(2)(A) and ( B).)
III. Alternatives
Where a project is found to have significant adverse impacts, CEQA requires the adoption of a feasible alternative that meets most of the project objectives but results in fewer significant impacts. ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors ( 1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180- 81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino ( 1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322.) A “feasible” alternative is one that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. ( Pub. Res. Code § 21061. 1; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15364) CEQA requires that an EIR provide a discussion of project alternatives that allows meaningful analysis. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The purpose of the discussion of alternatives is both to support the decision makers and to inform public participation. Thus, “[ a]n EIR’ s discussion of alternatives must contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making.” An EIR must also include “ detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.”
The lead agency is required to select the environmentally preferable alternative unless it is infeasible. As explained by the Supreme Court, an environmentally superior alternative may not be rejected simply because it is more expensive or less profitable:

The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors ( 1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180- 81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino ( 1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322) In Burger v. County of Mendocino ( 1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322, the court held that the county’ s approval of an 80 unit hotel project over a smaller 64 unit alternative, despite recommendations to the contrary in the EIR, was not supported by substantial evidence. The EIR discussed numerous adverse environmental effects that would be caused by the 80 unit project and recommended that the developer be allowed to construct a smaller 64 unit hotel so long as certain mitigation measures were completed, including relocation of some of the proposed buildings. In evaluating whether substantial evidence supported the county’ s rejection of the smaller alternative as economically infeasible, the court found that “ there is no estimate of income or expenditures, and thus no evidence that a reduction of the motel from 80 to 64 units, or relocation of some units, would make the project unprofitable.” 1 Thus, the court identified three criteria that should be evaluated in a comparative analysis to determine whether a project alternative or mitigation measure would be economically feasible: ( 1) estimated income; ( 2) estimated expenditures; and (3) estimated profitability between the proposed project and alternative or with and without recommended mitigation measures. ( See also, County of El Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. ( 2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 ( agency must consider small alternative to casino project); Preservation Action Counsel v. San Jose ( 2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336.) IV. Response to Comments
When a significant environmental issue is raised in comments that object to the draft EIR's analysis, the response must be detailed and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. 14 CCR §15088( c); Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach ( 2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 940.) “ Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” ( 14 CCR § 15088( c); see also Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa ( 1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.) The failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA' s informational purpose and may render the EIR legally inadequate. ( See Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel- by-the-Sea ( 2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rural Landowners Ass'n v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.)

DISCUSSION
I. The EIR Fails to Include Adequate and Enforceable Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

An EIR’ s mitigation measures must be fully enforceable and must actually rectify, reduce or eliminate an impact on the environment. ( CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15370, 15126. 4, subd. ( a)(2).) Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.” ( Sierra Club v. County of San Diego 1 Burger v. County of Mendocino, 45 Cal.App.3d at 326-327.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167 [ quoting Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’ n v. City of Los Angeles 2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508].) The purpose of having mitigation measures is that they actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” ( Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles ( 2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508.) A lead agency must determine, based on substantial evidence, that mitigation measures are effective. ( Lotus v. Department of Transportation ( 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656-658.) In addition, “[ f]ormulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time.” ( Guidelines, § 15126. 4, subd. ( a)( 1)(B).) “Deferred mitigation violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.” Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 520.) Here, the GHG mitigation measures in the EIR do not meet these fundamental standards.

A. There is No Evidence that Mitigation Measure GHG- 2 is Enforceable or Effective.

CEQA requires that mitigation measures “ be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.”( 14 CCR § 15126. 4(a)( 2). See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno ( 2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 683, 730 [ project proponent’ s agreement to a mitigation by itself is insufficient; mitigation measure must be an enforceable requirement.].) An informal commitment by the project proponent to implement a mitigation measure is insufficient. ( Id.)
Mitigation Measure GHG-2 (“ MM GHG-2”) provides:

The Property Owner/ Developer use diligent and good faith efforts to install and maintain solar power generation in the Project Site to generate at least 15% of the Project’ s electrical demand on-site….[ T]he Property Owner/ Developer shall submit a memorandum and plan to the City Planning Department for review and approval reasonably documenting ( a) compliance with this MM GHG 2 with respect to the subject Project component and ( b) demonstrating that the proposed solar panels would not result in a substantial source of glare for neighboring properties and for local roadways. By February 1 of each year, the Property Owner/ Developer shall submit a memorandum to the City Planning Department describing the prior year’ s electrical usage and on-site power generation. If the 15% on-site power generation was not achieved in the prior year, the memorandum shall contain feasible measures that the Property Owner/ Developer shall implement to reduce electrical usage and/or to increase on-site renewable energy generation to achieve this target.

DEIR, p. 4.7-41-42 [ emph. added].)
This mitigation measure violates CEQA in numerous ways. First, because mitigation measures must be enforceable, an informal commitment to “ use diligent and good faith efforts” Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

is not sufficient. ( Woodward Park Homeowners Ass’ n v. City of Fresno ( 2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 730.)
Second, there is no evidence that it is effective. The measure only requires the Applicant to use “ good faith efforts” to generate 15% of electrical demand on site. If those efforts fail, all that is required is that the developer submit a plan to the City containing other unspecified mitigation measures. Nothing in MM GHG-2 details what those measures might be, and whether they are feasible, or effective. Despite being fully complied with, MM-GHG-2 could result in no mitigation of GHG emissions at all.

Moreover, GHG-2 states that “[ s]olar panels may be installed on rooftops, above the surface parking lot for the commercial buildings, and/or elsewhere in the Project” to achieve 15% on-site electricity generation. However, the EIR fails to disclose how much energy is expected to be needed to meet the 15% target, and whether sufficient space is provided at these locations to generate the required amount. Without this information, there is also no evidence that the measure could be effective.

The EIR’ s unenforceable and non- committal measures allow the Applicant to decide to take no action and thus fail to mitigate the impact. As a result, the EIR cannot ensure that the measures relied on will in fact be implemented to mitigate the Project’ s GHG impacts. Therefore, they cannot serve as CEQA mitigation. ( Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson ( 2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1186- 87.) Given that the EIR fails to provide substantial evidence that MM GHG- 2 is enforceable and effective, this mitigation measure must be revised to adequately mitigate the Project’ s significant greenhouse gas impacts (“ GHG”).

B. There is No Evidence that Mitigation Measure GHG- 3 is Enforceable or Effective.

The EIR also provides no evidence that Mitigation Measure GHG-3 (“ MM GHG-3”) will be effective and it is unenforceable. MM GHG- 3 provides:

The Property Owner/ Developer shall enter into a Power Purchasing Agreement with Anaheim Public Utilities for the purchase of at least 60% “ green power” for the Project’ s electricity demand that cannot be produced on-site, if available. The Property Owner/ Developer shall submit documentation of green power purchases for the prior year, or documentation that it is not available, to the City Planning Department each February 1. This information shall be included in the memorandum that is required by MM GHG 2.

DEIR, p. 4.7-41 [ emph. added].)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

This mitigation measure also violates CEQA in numerous ways. First, there is no evidence that MM GHG- 3 will be feasible or effective because it only requires purchase of green power” “ if available.” The EIR provides no explanation of what “ if available” means. The EIR also provides discussion of how much “ green energy” would be needed to meet the 60% requirement and no evidence or explanation as to the likelihood of such energy being available for purchase. Indeed, the EIR even admits that “ GHG emissions reductions from MM GHG-3 are not quantified given that green power may not be available.” Without knowing the amount of green power” that will be available for purchase, there is no evidence that this measure will be effective at reducing GHG emissions. ( See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 728 [ finding mitigation measure that required purchases of ground water supplies inadequate because it failed to specify whether water would be available for purchase].) “ Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.” ( Sierra Club, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at 1167 [ unfunded future greenhouse gas mitigation measures inadequate under CEQA].) Moreover, if the required amount of “green energy” is not available, the mitigation measure requires only that the Property Owner/ Developer must “ submit documentation of green power purchases for the prior year, or documentation that it is not available.” Put another way, if 60% is unavailable, then the impact is left unmitigated.

Second, the EIR fails to define “ green power,” which makes it unclear if the power to be purchased from Anaheim Public Utilities would be from solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, or some sort of generation that the Applicant or utility deems “ green.” Without a definition, the term “ green power” is left up to the Property Owner’ s/Developer’ s interpretation. This interpretation may result in an agreement to solely purchase renewable energy, but it may not. It is this uncertainty that makes it impossible to ascertain the effectiveness of this mitigation measure. ( See Sierra Watch v. County of Placer ( 2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 110 [ finding noise mitigation measure inadequate because its requirement that “ operations and techniques [] be replaced with quieter procedures . . . where feasible” was so vague such that it “defer[ ed] until later the determination of which construction procedures can feasibly be changed and how these procedures can be modified to be quieter.”].)
In addition, there is no evidence that purchasing 60% “ green power” for the Project’ s energy demand beyond what is produced on site will actually reduce impacts. If Anaheim Public Utilities’ is already producing 60% of its energy for purchase as “ green power,” then the mitigation measure does nothing to change the status quo and actually reduce GHG emissions.

Where a mitigation measure does not actually avoid or substantially reduce a significant impact, even if it is binding and enforceable, the EIR cannot use the mitigation as a basis for finding the impact is reduced to less- than- significant. ( King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern 2020) 454 Cal.App.5th 814, 875; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments ( 2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 433.) Finally, MM GHG-3 is not effective because if “green power” is not available, nothing more is required of the developer. MM GHG- 3 only requires that the developer annually report Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

green power” purchases, or simply state that it is not available. “[ M]itigation measure[ s] [ that do] no more than require a report be prepared and followed” do not provide adequate information for informed decisionmaking under CEQA. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v.

County of Orange ( 2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794; Guidelines § 15126. 4(a)(1)(B). As a result, the reporting requirement under MM GHG-3 does not provide the City adequate information to conclude that this measure will be effective.

Therefore, MM GHG- 3 violates CEQA because there is no evidence it will be effective and actually reduce GHG impacts.

C. MM GHG- 2 Contains Improperly Deferred Mitigation.

CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. 14 CCR § 15126. 4(a)( 1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino ( 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308- 309. An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses meaningful information’ reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.” Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento ( 1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028- 29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only “ for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible”). A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford ( 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available). This approach helps “ insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.” Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. ( 1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935. By deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the City has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the court in Communities for a Better Env’t v. Richmond ( 2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92:

R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA’s goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment.

MM GHG-2 requires, in part, that if the Project does not achieve 15% on-site power generation:

By February 1 of each year, the Property Owner/ Developer shall submit a memorandum to the City Planning Department describing the prior year’ s electrical usage and on-site Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

power generation. If the 15% on-site power generation was not achieved in the prior year, the memorandum shall contain feasible measures that the Property Owner/ Developer shall implement to reduce electrical usage and/or to increase on-site renewable energy generation to achieve this target.

MM GHG-2 constitutes just the type of deferred mitigation CEQA prohibits. Here, the EIR defers the preparation of a plan to reduce electrical usage and increase on-site renewable generation until after completion of CEQA review, without imposing any substantive standards, without providing for any public review, and subject only to the applicant’ s determination of effectiveness. While the plan must be submitteed to the City Planning Department, that department has no ability to comment on or deny the plan and proposed measures. Even if it did, it would still violate CEQA because deferral of mitigation is impermissible where it removes the CEQA decision- making body from its decision- making role. The City may not delegate the formulation and approval of mitigation measures to address environmental impacts to thee applicant, as it does here, or even the City Planning Department. An agency’ s legislative body must ultimately review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino ( 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. Thus, the EIR may not rely on programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City Council. Yet that is precisely what MM GHG- 2 does. The City has improperly delegated its legal responsibility of determining what constitutes adequate mitigation to the applicant in violation of CEQA.

In addition, there is no evidence that MM GHG- 2 represents the type of deferred mitigation that is allowed in limited circumstances. Lead agencies may defer formulating mitigation until after project approval only “ when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’ s environmental review.” ( 14 CCR § 15126. 4(a)( 1)(B). An EIR must also explain an agency’ s decision to defer finalizing the specifics of mitigation. ( Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee ( 2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281.) Here, there is no evidence that it is impractical or infeasible to either require on-site solar generation now or, at a minimum, list alternative GHG reduction measures that must be adopted in lieu of on-site generation rather than waiting to formulate them until after CEQA review is conducted and the public no longer has an opportunity to weigh in on the effectiveness of those measures.

MM GHG-2’s improperly deferred mitigation is further evidenced by the fact that it fails to meet all the criteria for justifying deferred mitigation. An EIR may defer mitigation only when it (1) commits itself to the mitigation, ( 2) adopts specific performance standards that mitigation measure will achieve, and ( 3) identifies the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve that performance standard. ( CEQA Guidelines § 15126. 4(a)(1)(B).) First, MM GHG- 2 does not commit itself to any mitigation. There is no requirement that the memorandum implement measures that will achieve 15% on-site power generation, instead 15% on-site power generation is framed as a “ target.” Second, while achieving 15% on-site Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

power generation can be viewed as a performance standard, there is no evidence that this performance standard will be achieved. If 15% on- site power generation is not achieved, MM GHG- 2 only requires that further measures be implemented to reach, not achieve this target.

Third, the EIR fails to identify potential actions that can feasibly achieve 15% on-site power generation. MM GHG-2 merely states that “[ s]olar panels may be installed on rooftops, above the surface parking lot for the commercial buildings, and/or elsewhere in the Project.” This vague statement does not provide the public or the City with enough information to ascertain whether 15% on-site power generation can be feasibly achieved.

Since MM GHG- 2 contains improperly deferred mitigation, this measure must be revised to adequately mitigate GHG impacts.

D. The EIR Fails to Require All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project’ s “ Significant and Unavoidable” GHG Impacts.

CEQA prohibits a lead agency from approving a project with significant environmental effects if there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. ( PRC § 21002; Mountain Lion Found. v. Fish & Game Comm’ n (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134; Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 403 [“ The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance of environmental harm”].) CEQA defines “ feasible” as “ capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” ( PRC § 21061. 1; 14 CCR § 15364.) “ The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.” ( Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) When an EIR concludes that a project will have significant impacts, the lead agency has two duties: to meaningfully consider feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives rejected as infeasible. ( See, Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose ( 2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1353.)
The lead agency may not approve a project with significant impacts unless it makes one or more of three findings:
1) that changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; 2) that the agency making the findings lacks jurisdiction to make the change, but that another agency does have such authority, and either has made or can and should make, the change; and/or
3) that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations … make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.

PRC §21081( a); 14 CCR §15091( a.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

When a comment suggests “ better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental impacts” ( 14 CCR §§ 15088( c), 15204( a)), the lead agency must respond to the comment by either explaining why further consideration of the alternative or mitigation was rejected or by providing an evaluation of the alternative. ( Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land Cal. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1666; see Cal. Native Plant Soc’ y v. City of Santa Cruz CNPS”) ( 2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 992.) “‘[ A]n adequate EIR must respond to specific suggestions for mitigating a significant environmental impact unless the suggested mitigation is facially infeasible.’ [ citation omitted] ‘ While the response need not be exhaustive, it should evince good faith and a reasoned analysis.’” ( CNPS, 177 Cal.App.4th at 992, citing L.A. Unified School Dist. v. City of L.A. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029; see also, Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta ( 1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, fn. 8.) When an EIR has identified significant environmental effects that have not been mitigated or avoided, the agency may not approve the project unless it first finds that “[ s] pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” ( PRC §21081( a)( 3); see 14 CCR §15091( a)(3).) Rejected alternatives and mitigation measures must be “ truly infeasible.” ( City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.) Infeasibility findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. ( PRC §21081. 5; 14 CCR §15091( b).) “ The required findings constitute the principal means chosen by the Legislature to enforce the state’ s declared policy ‘ that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects…” ( City of Marina, 39 Cal.4th at 350 [ quoting PRC §21002].)
CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. ( Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092( b)(2)(A) and ( B).) Despite labeling the Project’ s GHG impact as “ significant and unavoidable,” there are a myriad of additional measures that can be required to further mitigate the Project’ s GHG emissions.

First, the Project’ s GHG emissions can be further mitigated by eliminating natural gas use from the Project entirely. Stoves and common area fireplaces in the residential building will rely on natural gas. This will generate 412 MTCO2e/ year from natural gas combustion. ( Ex. A, p. 2.) Mr. Sutton found that “[ e]liminating natural gas use for all appliances and plumbing across the project site (residential and commercial) and designing all-electric buildings would substantially reduce the Project’ s GHG emissions.” ( Id.) All electric residential buildings are regularly constructed throughout California. Indeed, all-electric residential and mixed- use construction is one of the “ key residential and mixed- use project attributes [ to] reduce GHGs” as recommended in the California Air Resources Board (“ CARB”) 2022 Scoping Plan. 2 There is no evidence that 2 California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, Local Actions ( November 2022), p. 22, https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/ sites/ default/ files/2022- 11/2022- sp- appendix- d-local- actions. pdf.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

removing the natural gas components of the Project is infeasible. As a result, this feasible mitigation measures must be adopted to reduce the Project’ s significant GHG impact.

Second, MM GHG-2 only requires the applicant to use a good faith effort to generate 15% of electricity demand through on-site solar generation. Actually requiring 15% of energy demand to be met with onsite solar or other renewables would be more effective and there is no evidence that such a mitigation measure is infeasible. The same is true for adding onsite battery energy storage to be coupled with the onsite generation. Nor is there evidence that requiring something more than 15% of energy demand - and up to 100% of the energy demand - to be met with onsite solar generation and battery storage. Requiring additional on-site renewable energy generation and storage must be adopted absent evidence of infeasibility. ( Ex. A, p. 2.) Third, Anaheim Public Utilities allows customers to purchase up to 100 percent renewable energy which would substantially reduce the [ P]roject’ s GHG emissions.” ( Id. at p. 3.) However, the EIR did not consider the feasibility of potentially purchasing 100 percent renewable energy from Anaheim Public Utilities.

Fourth, requiring more EV charging stations. The EIR provides that the Project would install approximately 81 EV chargers would further reduce GHG emissions. Mr. Sutton points out that “ the [P]roject could include mitigation that goes beyond the minimum regulatory requirements for EV parking. For example, a project mitigation measure could require the multifamily residential building to comply with the voluntary Tier 2 EV requirements described in the most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards Code ( CALGreen).” Id.) CALGreen Tier 2 would require, “ 15 percent of the total parking spaces ( 153 spaces) to be equipped with Level 2 EV Supply Equipment and 40 percent of the total parking spaces ( 408 spaces) to be “ EV Ready” for installing charging equipment later.” ( Id.) Mr. Sutton notes that s] upporting the transition to all-electric vehicles with zero GHG emissions could substantially reduce the [ P]roject’ s GHG emission.” ( Id.) Consistent with Mr. Sutton’ s suggestion, the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan also recommends that “ at a minimum” EV charging infrastructure should meet the “ most ambitious” voluntary CALGreen standard “ at the time of project approval.” CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, p. 22.) However, the EIR failed to consider the feasibility of installing more than the minimum amount of EV chargers.

Finally, the CARB Scoping Plan contains numerous other measures recommended for mixed used and residential projects that would further reduce the Project’ s significant and unavoidable GHG impacts, such as: providing at least 20 percent affordable units, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit, and eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. ( CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Table 3, p. 22.).

The EIR must be revised to consider these measures and adopt all feasible measures to further reduce the Project’ s significant impacts.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

II. The EIR’ s Analysis of Wildfire, Evacuation, and Public Safety Impacts Violates CEQA.

CEQA requires an EIR to “ analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected. For example the EIR should evaluate any potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas), including both short-term and long-term conditions . . .” ( 14 CCR § 15126. 2 (a).) “[ W]hen a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’ s impact on the environment – and not the environment’ s impact on the project – that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 377-78.)
Fire evacuation and emergency planning expert Kevin Weinisch, P.E, reviewed and analyzed the EIR’ s baseline and supplemental evacuation analysis and found several deficiencies in both. The baseline and supplemental evacuation analysis represent a “ typical” “ quick and costeffective analysis,” but as a result, “ overlook some glaring issues such as queuing and spillback from neighboring intersections.” ( Ex. B., at p. 9.) “ In the real world, the roadway system does not end at the intersection being analyzed.” ( Id.) In contrast to the evacuation analysis provided by the EIR, Weinisch’ s analysis and findings represent a fuller picture of what an evacuation in and around the Project site would look like, and disclose a significant public safety impact, which is discussed further below.

The EIR’ s baseline evacuation analysis determined that if a fire were to occur in Deer Canyon, directly east of the project site, that evacuation time would increase by 24 minutes. To determine whether a 24-minute increase in evacuation time would be significant, the EIR adopted a threshold of 30 minutes, which is consistent with the federal evacuation threshold for nuclear power plants. ( Ex. B, p. 4.) By accounting for impacts the baseline analysis failed to consider and disclose, Mr. Weinisch determined that evacuation time would increase by 43 minutes, almost twice the amount of time estimated in the baseline analysis. A supplemental evacuation analysis was also prepared in response to comments concerned about a fire potentially occurring in the open space east of the Anaheim hills, which would require residents to the east of the Project to evacuate. ( Id. at p. 5.) For this scenario, the supplemental analysis concluded that evacuation times would increase by five minutes. However, Mr. Weinisch found that evacuation times would be eleven minutes, “ significantly higher” than the estimate in the supplemental analysis.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

A. The Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Public Safety and Evacuations that the EIR does not Disclose.

Mr. Weinisch identifies several impacts that the EIR’ s evacuation analysis did not disclose including shadow evacuations, lost time at the traffic signal, bottlenecking, and queuing.

By failing to disclose and analyze these impacts, the EIR’ s analysis of evacuation and public safety impacts is incomplete.
i. The EIR fails to include an analysis of shadow evacuations.

Mr. Weinisch found that the EIR’ s baseline evacuation analysis failed to account for shadow evacuation, which “ is the voluntary evacuation of people outside the declared evacuation zone.” ( Id. at p. 20.) As Mr. Weinisch explains, shadow evacuation is a “ major concern during emergencies,” and “[ a]dditional vehicles evacuating could result in additional traffic congestion, additional delays, and longer evacuation times.” ( Id.) By failing to consider how shadow evacuation increases evacuation times, the baseline analysis evacuation estimate is not supported by substantial evidence.
ii. The EIR fails to include an analysis of lost time at the traffic signal.

In the baseline analysis, Mr. Weinsich identifies two areas where bottlenecking would be an issue during an evacuation, the first being the area where there is a lane drop traveling westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road ( see Ex. E, Figure 2), and the second being the SR-91 on ramp traveling westbound. Less than a mile west of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway intersection, Santa Ana Canyon Road drops from three lanes to two lanes. ( Id. at p. 3.) Mr. Weinisch found that “ this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck on westbound Santa Ana Canyon Road.” ( Id.) Mr. Weinisch found that it is “ highly likely” the SR-91 on ramp would also face bottlenecking because it is a curved, low-speed cloverleaf ramp. ( Id.) The baseline analysis failed to account for these bottlenecking scenarios, thus the baseline analysis evacuation estimate is not supported by substantial evidence.

In the supplemental analysis, Mr. Weinisch found that the lost time at the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road intersection traffic signal would be the same as the lost time calculated for the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway signal. ( Id. at p. 20.) Like the baseline analysis, the supplemental remains inadequate until the lost time at the signal is accounted for.
iii. The EIR fails to include an analysis of bottlenecking.

In the baseline analysis, Mr. Weinsich identifies two areas where bottlenecking would be an issue during an evacuation, the first being the area where there is a lane drop traveling westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road ( see Ex. B, Figure 2), and the second being the SR-91 on Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

ramp traveling westbound. Less than a mile west of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway intersection, Santa Ana Canyon Road drops from three lanes to two lanes. ( Id. at p. 3.) Mr. Weinisch found that “ this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck on westbound Santa Ana Canyon Road.” ( Id.) Mr. Weinisch found that it is “ highly likely” the SR-91 on ramp would also face bottlenecking because it is a curved, low-speed cloverleaf ramp. ( Id.) The baseline analysis failed to account for these bottlenecking scenarios, thus the baseline analysis evacuation estimate is not supported by substantial evidence.

Bottlenecking would also occur if there were a fire in the open space east of the Anaheim hills. According to the supplemental analysis, there are three through lanes that continue northbound on Weir Canyon Road ( which becomes Yorba Linda Boulevard). However, Mr.

Weinisch notes that less than a mile from the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road intersection there is a lane drop on Yorba Linda Boulevard, which the supplemental analysis did not account for. (Id. at. p. 6.) Mr. Weinisch found that in an evacuation where vehicles are traveling northbound on Weir Canyon Road to continue onto Yorba Linda Boulevard, “ this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck.” ( Id.) By failing to account this bottlenecking scenario, the supplemental analysis evacuation estimate is inaccurate and unsupported by substantial evidence.
iv. The EIR fails to include an analysis of queuing and spillback.

The baseline analysis assumes that evacuees will travel westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road, through the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway intersection but did not account for evacuees attempting to turn right onto Imperial Highway to access SR-91. (Id.) There are two right turn pockets available to turn right from Santa Ana Canyon Road onto Imperial Highway toward SR-91. (Id.) Mr. Weinisch found that “ if any significant percentage of these vehicles turn right at the intersection to access SR-91, the turn pockets will not have adequate storage.” ( Id. at p. 3-4.) As a result, “[ q]ueues will spill back into the right-most through lane and possibly the center through lane impeding the egress of through vehicles.” ( Id.) Until the EIR addresses the queuing and spill back issue at the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway intersection, it’s evacuation estimate remains unsupported by substantial evidence.

The supplemental analysis assumes vehicles would travel eastbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road and then turn left onto Weir Canyon Road to access SR-91. (Id. at p. 5.) However, t]he expected evacuation volumes at the eastbound Santa Ana Canyon Road approach to the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road] intersection are not provided in the supplemental [ analysis] ( they should be), but they will be well in excess of 1,000 vehicles based on the evacuation assumptions listed in the supplemental [ analysis].” ( Id.) As Mr. Weinisch explains, “[ a] ll of these vehicles would turn left at the intersection to access SR-91 . . . [ but] the left turn pockets will not have adequate storage.” ( Id.) As a result, “ queuing will be significant.” Id.)
Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

Mr. Weinisch’ s analysis and findings demonstrate that the EIR’ s baseline and supplemental evacuation analysis are seriously lacking, which has resulted in evacuation times being severely underestimated. As such, the EIR’ s fire evacuation analysis must be revised in order to disclose and analyze the impact of shadow evacuations, lost time at the traffic signal, bottlenecking, and queuing.

B. There is No Evidence that Wildfire Mitigation Measures Will be Effective to Mitigate Impact Below Significance.

The EIR contains no facts or analysis to support a conclusion that the Project’ s wildfire and evacuation impacts will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures. ( See Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno ( 2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 522.) Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 provides that:

Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first multiple- family residential unit, the Property Owner/ Developer shall fund and implement closed- circuit television ( CCTV) cameras at Imperial Highway/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills Road/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fairmont Boulevard/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Deer Canyon Road/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Festival Drive/Santa Ana Canyon Road, and Weir Canyon Road/ Santa Ana Canyon Road.

Mr. Weinisch found that the implementation of CCTV alone is not sufficient to adequately mitigate wildfire impacts. ( Ex. B, p. 7.) “ If you put CCTV at an intersection and the camera feeds are not communicating with the signal controller or [traffic management center] in some way, then the CCTV will do nothing to help evacuation during a wildfire.” ( Id.) The EIR must also require Intelligent Transportation System ( ITS) technology which includes measures such as having a traffic engineer observe live feed from an intersection camera to analyze traffic patterns and adjust signal timings accordingly during an emergency. ( Id.) Therefore, “[ t]he developer musty commit to installing CCTV and using the feed from those cameras . . . if they want to claim that it is mitigation measure to help with evacuation.” ( Id.) Since MM HAZ-5 does not specify whether the feed from the CCTV cameras will also incorporate ITS measures, there is no evidence that this mitigation measure will be effective.

Therefore, this mitigation measure must be revised to include ITS measures in order to make this measure effective.

III. The EIR’ s Energy Analysis and Mitigation Violate CEQA.

In pursuit of a CEQA’s goals including the long-term protection of the environment, it is paramount that agencies seriously consider ways to transition to a renewable energy future, as outlined in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires an EIR analyze a project’ s energy conservation impacts. ( PRC § 21100( b)(3); Guidelines §§ 15126. 4(a)( 1); Appendix F.) If Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

the analysis reveals the project may have a significant environmental effect due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources, “ the EIR shall mitigate that energy use.” Guidelines, § 15126. 2(b).) An EIR’ s analysis of a project’ s energy use “ should include the project’ s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation- related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations include, among others, the project’ s size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project.” ( 14 CCR 15126. 2(b) (emphasis added).)
Far from achieving the “ wise and efficient use of energy,” the Project and EIR are a missed a critical opportunity to integrate broad- scale energy planning into the early stages of project design when energy conservation can be addressed without the constraints of major sunk costs.

A. The EIR’ s Analysis of Energy Conservation Does Not Comply with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.

Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that “[ t]he goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy,” and “[ t]he means of achieving this goal include: ( 1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, ( 2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil, and ( 3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.” To ensure that these goals are being met, CEQA requires that “ EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” ( Appendix F, § I [citing Public Resources Code § 21100( b)(3).].)
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides “ guidance” on information to include in an EIR’ s analysis of a project’ s energy use, and impacts and mitigation measures for agencies to consider. ( Appendix F; 14 CCR 15126. 2(b).) It explains that “[ t]he goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy,” which is achieved by “( 1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, ( 2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and ( 3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” ( Id.) Appendix F lists several factors to be discussed in an EIR, including, inter alia, the following:

Project Description:

Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project.

Energy conservation equipment and design features.

Environmental Impacts:
a) The energy intensiveness of materials.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

b) The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and requirements for additional capacity.
c) The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
d) The project’ s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
e) Irreversible commitment of resources including how the project preempts future energy development or future energy conservation.

Mitigation Measures:
f) Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
g) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
h) The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
i) The use of alternate fuels ( particularly renewable ones) or energy systems as mitigation.
j) Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.

None of these issues were addressed in the EIR. Consequently, neither informed decisionmaking nor informed public participation was possible with respect to energy issues.

Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford ( 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712.) Where an agency has failed to include information in its environmental analysis as required by CEQA, the agency has failed to proceed in the manner required by law. (Vineyard Area Citizens, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 435; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond ( 2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 82 [“’[ T]he existence of substantial evidence supporting the agency’ s ultimate decision is not relevant when one is assessing a violation of the information disclosure provisions of CEQA.’”]; Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236- 37 [ omission of required information constitutes a failure to proceed in the manner required by law where it precludes informed decision- making by the agency or informed participation by the public]; Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange ( 1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829 [ EIR legally inadequate because of lack of water supply and facilities analysis]; Santa Monica Baykeeper v.

City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1546 [ EIR may be found legally inadequate for omitting information that is both required by CEQA and necessary to informed discussion]; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno ( 2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 514 [“ A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.”].) Until the EIR is revised to adequately discusses these Appendix F factors, the City cannot go forward with project approval.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

Some examples of these deficiencies include:

The energy analysis does not consider the energy intensiveness of the equipment to be used in site development, construction of infrastructure, or building construction nor does it disclose the energy incensement of building materials.

The energy analysis does not consider the potential for using electric construction equipment, locally sourced materials, and other measures to reduce energy intensiveness of construction.

The energy analysis does not discuss the Project’ s size, location, orientation, or building design strategies or material options to reduce energy requirements and conserve energy such as increasing windows to reduce lighting needs and requiring energy efficient materials that will keep units temperature controlled with less need for heat or air conditioning.

The energy analysis contains no discussion of the Project’ s use of natural gas and why using natural gas for cooking and fireplaces in commons spaces is not an inefficient and wasteful use of fossil fuels.

The energy analysis does not reflect even minimal investigation into the feasibility of solar energy although solar technologies are obviously relevant. While MM GHG- 2 requires the applicant to make a good faith effort to generate on-site renewable energy to meet 15% of the Project’ s energy demand, it does not discuss whether this is feasible.

Nor does it discuss whether it is feasible to meet more than 15% of energy demand with on-site generation and battery storage, up to 100%.

The energy analysis does not evaluate whether the Project can achieve efficiencies beyond Title 24.

The energy analysis fails to evaluate the feasibility of reducing peak energy demand, either by requiring battery storage along with solar or implementing other demand reduction techniques.

The EIR fails to consider whether the increased costs and administrative difficulties of retrofitting clean energy generation to the project at some later date, and the costs of attempting to adapt an operating project to sustainable transportation and renewable energy effectively pre-empt future energy conservation efforts and constitute a waste of energy resources. Failing to incorporate renewable energy systems when the project is implemented would create obstacles to any future implementation of renewable energy at the Project. Once fossil fuel systems are designed and built, such as natural gas infrastructure, project owners and tenants will face significant administrative and financial obstacles to retrofitting renewable generation.

The EIR fails to discuss per capita energy consumption and how the Project can decrease per capita energy consumption.

The energy analysis contains no discussion of reducing reliance on fossil fuels by providing more electric vehicle chargers, providing additional public transit access or subsidized transit passes, or detaching the price of parking from the price of residential units to encourage more transit use.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

The energy analysis improperly dismisses construction- related energy impact because it would be “ temporary in nature.

A]n agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” CEQA Guidelines § 15144.) Where a standard accepted methodology can feasibly be used to assess a significant impact, the lead agency must assess the impact. ( Berkeley Keep the Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners ( 2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1370.) CEQA requires a fact-based analysis, not bare conclusions or opinions. ( Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 568.) As a result of these deficiencies, the EIR fails to demonstrate that the Project’ s reliance on fossil fuels would decrease and that the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy, and the EIR fails as an informational document.

B. The EIR Fails to Meaningfully Evaluate Increased Reliance on Renewable Energy and Decrease Reliance on Fossil Fuels.

A discussion of energy impacts must include a discussion of potential ways to increase reliance on renewables and decrease reliance on fossil fuels. Lead agencies should address measures with “ the potential for reducing peak energy demand.” ( CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § II.D.3.) Failing to implement cost- effective renewable resources and opting for dependence on expensive fossil fuel resources constitutes a significant adverse impact to energy conservation that must be disclosed and discussed in the EIR. An EIR that fails to undertake “ an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” fails to comply with CEQA. ( City of Woodland, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at 213.) The EIR contains no meaningful discussion of reducing reliance on fossil fuels or increasing reliance on renewable energy. First, the Project will increase reliance on fossil fuels by increasing demand for natural gas far into the future because the project will rely on natural gas for cooking and fire places. The energy section contains no discussion of how this constitutes the wise and efficient use of energy.

As for renewable energy, the analysis contains only a brief conclusory statement that the Project will implement MM GHG-2, “ which requires the that the Property Owner/ Developer install and maintain solar power generation on the rooftops of all of the proposed buildings to generate at least 15% of the Project’ s electrical demand on-site.” ( DEIR 4.5-17.) There are two problems with this. First, that is not what MM GHG-2 requires. There is no requirement that any solar generation be built at the site, only that a good faith effort is made, and only for solar that meets certain requirements for views that the City is setting. Second, there is no discussion of the feasibility of meeting the 15% target, or the feasibility of meeting a higher percentage of the Project’ s energy demand from on-site generation and battery storage, up to 100%.

A discussion of energy impacts must include a discussion of potential ways to increase reliance on renewables and decrease reliance on fossil fuels both as part of the impact analysis and as part of the mitigation discussion if the impact is found to be significant. The court explained:

First, when the EIR analyzes the project’ s energy use to determine if it creates significant Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project. ( Guidelines, § 15126. 2, subdivision ( b).) The EIR’ s determination of whether the potential impact is significant is to be based on this discussion. Second, if the EIR concludes the project’ s impact on energy resources is significant, it should consider mitigating the impact by requiring uses of alternate fuels, particularly renewable ones, if applicable. ( Guidelines, Appendix F., II. D. 4.) 3
League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Pres. Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 225 Cal.App.4th 63, 167.)
Here the EIR does not include a discussion of potential ways to increase reliance on renewables and decrease reliance on fossil fuels apart from pointing to mitigation measures.

Simply stating that the Project will implement mitigation measures, particularly ones that violate CEQA as discussed above, does not constitute a discussion of increasing reliance on renewable energy.

C. The Transportation Energy Discussion Consisted of Listing of Project Features.

Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides that energy impacts may include “[ t]he project’ s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.” ( CEQA Guidelines App. F, II.C.1.) The EIR failed to identify, analyze or mitigate the potentially significant impacts to energy arising from increased vehicle travel, minimal EV charging equipment, and minimal transit mode share. Appendix F provides for a description of the “ total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode” but this information is not provided. ( CEQA Guidelines App. F, II.A.5.) The EIR fails to comply with CEQA and fails to provide the public and decisionmakers with a credible analysis of energy impacts related to transportation or discussion of how to decrease reliance on fossil fuel vehicles by, for example, increasing EV chargers, requiring electric construction equipment, and adopting other policies to increase use of public transportation.

D. The EIR fails to Meaningfully Discuss Energy Conservation Equipment and Design Features.

Even though the Project will use 728,709 gallons of diesel and 628,265 gallons of gasoline, the EIR concludes that beyond what is required by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, such as limiting idling from diesel- powered equipment, that “ opportunities for further future efficiency gains during construction are limited.” However, the EIR does not explain why further energy conservation gains are limited or why using energy conservation equipment would be infeasible. For example, the EIR fails to consider the use of electric construction equipment, such as electric trucks or forklifts. Because the EIR failed to consider 3 League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Pres. Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 225 Cal.App.4th 63, 167 (“ League to Save Lake Tahoe”).

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

the use of energy saving equipment and failed to explain why the use of such equipment would be infeasible, the EIR’ s determination that the Project’ s construction would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy is not supported by substantial evidence.

Similarly, the EIR concludes, without explanation, that “ it is reasonable to assume that overall construction schedule and process would be designed and implemented to be efficient as feasible to avoid excess monetary costs.” Without any evidence to support his conclusion, EIR fails to demonstrate that the Project’ s construction would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. CEQA requires a fact-based analysis, not bare conclusions or opinions. ( Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 568.)
E. The EIR’ s Reliance on Title 24 Building Standards is Insufficient.

The EIR concludes that given the Project’ s compliance with Title 24 of the California Building Code and the California Green Building Standards Code (“ CALGreen”), the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. CEQA requires more.

In California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland ( 2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 211, the court found that a proposed shopping center’ s compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen did not adequately address the considerations Appendix F requires. The court noted that while Title 24 of the Building Code and CALGreen include energy saving requirements, they did not address the specific energy impacts that would result from transforming agricultural land into a large shopping center. (Id.) Similarly, the Project’ s reliance on Title 24 and CALGreen does not address the energy impacts that would result from transforming 76 acres of undeveloped land into a large mixed- use development. Thus, compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen alone is not enough to ensure that the Project’ s construction and operation would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

F. The EIR Contains Conflicting Conclusions.

The EIR contains conflicting conclusions. At 4.5-13 that the Project’ s energy impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Similarly, at 4.5-18 it states “ with implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to this threshold.” Ye t also on 4.5-18, the EIR states “ the consumption of energy resources ( including electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel), during Project construction and during operation of the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful and would result in a less than significant impact.” These conflicting conclusions render the EIR inadequate as an informational document and fail to disclose to the public and decision makers the Project’ s impacts.

Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

G. The EIR Improperly Compresses the Analysis of Energy Impacts and Mitigation Measures Into a Single Issues.

An EIR is “ ‘ an informational document’ ” central to “ CEQA’s fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the environmental consequences of action by their public officials.” ( Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 404.) Consequently, an EIR “ shall” set forth “[ a] ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project” and “[ m]itigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment.” (§ 21100, subd. ( b).) CEQA requires these analyses to be distinct. (§ 21100, subd. ( b); see also Sacramento Old City Assn., 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1027.)
In addition to containing conflicting conclusions, the EIR’ s energy analysis also improperly combines the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures. The EIR never discloses the extend of any significant energy impact the Project has, but instead merely dismisses any impact because mitigation measures will be implemented. By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, subd. ( b), 21081; Guidelines, §§ 15126, 15091; Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 280 Cal.Rptr. 478; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 185 Cal.Rptr. 41.) As a result, the EIR precludes both identification of potential environmental consequences arising from the project and also thoughtful analysis of the sufficiency of measures to mitigate those consequences.

IV. The EIR Fails to Include Adequate and Enforceable Mitigation Measures to Reduce Significant Transportation Impacts.

A. The EIR Fails to Provide Substantial Evidence That the Mitigation Measures Adopted to Reduce Transportation Impacts Will Be Effective or Enforceable.

Among the mitigation measures proposed to reduce the Project’ s VMT impact, Mitigation Measure TRANS- 4 provides that the Property Owner/ Developer will construct a new sidewalk along the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Eucalyptus Avenue to approximately 760 feet west of Festival Drive “ if feasible.” However, the EIR does not elaborate on the feasibility of this measure. Therefore, the effectiveness of this measure cannot be gauged because its feasibility is uncertain. Without further information on whether this measure will be feasible, the mitigation measure remains unsupported by substantial evidence.

B. The City’ s Responses to Caltrans regarding the Project’ s Transportation Impacts Are Inadequate.

Caltrans commented in the Draft EIR, suggesting that the Project’ s “[ b]icycle parking design may need to accommodate cargo bikes, such as for food delivery services [ which] can alleviate the need for delivery trucks and GHG emissions associated with them.” In response, the Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

City stated that this comment did not “ raise significant environmental issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR” and therefore “ no further response [ was] necessary.” Caltrans also suggested that the Project provide electric charging stations for personal vehicle use, to which the City replied that “ EV charging would be provided consistent with requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code,” adding that no further response was necessary because the “ comment [ did] not raise significant environmental issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR.” The City’ s responses are evasive and non-responsive. The City’ s conclusory responses disregard Caltrans’ comments that suggest measures for reducing GHG emissions despite the fact that the Project will have significant unavoidable GHG impacts. The City fails to consider whether accommodating cargo bikes in the Project’ s bicycle parking design would be feasible.

The City’ s response to Caltrans regarding EV charging is also misleading. The EIR does not state that the Project will provide EV charging, but rather EV charging “ infrastructure” for future EV charging installation. The City fails to consider the feasibility of providing EV charging stations.

The City’ s failure to engage with the feasibility of measures suggested by Caltrans renders the City’ s response inadequate. ( Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 878 [ rejecting adequacy of response that did not explain why suggested mitigation was infeasible].)
C. The EIR Fails to Require All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project’ s “ Significant and Unavoidable” VMT Impact.

The EIR concludes that the Project will have a significant, unavoidable impact on transportation. The EIR determined that in order to meet the City’ s vehicle miles traveled VMT”) significance threshold of 21.86 VMT, that the Project’ s baseline VMT would need to be reduced by 21.25 percent and the Project’ s cumulative VMT would need to be reduced by

24.44 percent. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the EIR determined that the Project’ s VMT impact would be offset by up to 7.51 percent, which is less than the amount required to fully mitigate the Project’ s VMT impact for baseline and cumulative conditions.

However, the EIR failed to consider other feasible mitigation measures such as providing subsidized bus passes for residents, or measures recommended by the CARB Scoping Plan such as: providing at least 20 percent affordable units, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit, and eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. ( CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Table 3, p. 22.) V. The Environmentally Superior Alternative Must Be Adopted Because There Is No Substantial Evidence That it Is Infeasible.

Under CEQA, “ public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives . . . available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” ( Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.) A lead agency’ s analysis of Project Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

alternatives is the “ core of an EIR.” ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ( 1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR must describe a range of alternatives with “ sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” ( CEQA Guidelines § 15126. 6(d).) As such, CEQA requires that the City adopt an environmentally superior project alternative unless there is substantial evidence that doing so would be infeasible. ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors ( 1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180- 81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino ( 1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322.) Here, the EIR identified Alternative 2, the reduced development alternative, as the environmentally superior choice. Under Alternative 2, the square footage for the commercial portion would be halved; the six single- family residences would not be developed, leaving 10.4 acres of open space; and the Property Owner/ Developer would limit the number of daily users which would result in no more than 100 trips per day. According to the EIR, “ Alternative 2 would meet all the project objectives . . . because [ it] would involve ( 1) the same number and type of residential housing that would continue to be clustered and sited primarily at the lower elevations; ( 2) a reasonable amount of commercial uses; and ( 3) the significant multi- use trail and related roadway network improvements” This alternative would result in fewer impacts to air quality, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Given that the EIR has presented Alternative 2 as a feasible, and environmentally superior alternative, the City must adopt this alternative.

VI. The City Cannot Adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration Because the EIR Fails to Implement All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

Under CEQA, when an agency approves a project with significant environmental impacts that will not be fully mitigated, it must adopt a “ statement of overriding considerations” finding that, because of the project’ s overriding benefits, it is approving the project despite its environmental harm. ( 14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15043; Pub. Res. Code § 21081( b); Sierra Club v.

Contra Costa County ( 1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222.) A statement of overriding considerations expresses the “ larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes and the like.” ( Concerned Citizens of South Central LA v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 847.) An agency may adopt a statement of overriding considerations only after it has imposed all feasible mitigation measures to reduce a project’ s impact to less than significant levels. ( 14 Cal. Admin. Code §§ 15126. 4, 15091.) CEQA prohibits agencies from approving projects with significant environmental impacts when feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen or avoid such impacts. ( Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) As explained in CEQA Guidelines § 15092( b)(2), an agency is prohibited from approving a project unless it has “[ e]liminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible.” A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. ( 14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15093( b); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Co., 10 Cal.App.4th at Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

1223.) The agency must make “ a fully informed and publicly disclosed” decision that specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.” ( 14 Cal. Admin. Code. § 15043( b).) As with all findings, the agency must present an explanation to supply the logical steps between the ultimate finding and the facts in the record. ( Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.

County of Los Angeles ( 1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.)
Here, the City has not adopted all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce its significant impacts and therefore cannot adopt a statement of overriding considerations and lacks evidence to support findings required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations.

VII. The EIR’ s Analysis and Mitigation of the Project’ s Impacts on Biological Resources Violates CEQA.

A. The EIR’ s Biological Resources Analysis Failed to Accurately Characterize the Environmental Setting of the Project Site.

CEQA requires an EIR contain an accurate description of the project’ s environmental setting. An EIR “ must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project… from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” ( Guidelines, § 15125, subd. ( a).) “ Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. . . The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context.” ( Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, ( 2003) 108 Cal.

App. 4th 859, 874.)
After reviewing and analyzing a biological resources technical report that was prepared for the Project site in 2005 for a previously proposed project (“ BonTerra Report”), Dr.

Smallwood found that the Project site is “ far richer in special- status species” than what is characterized in the EIR. (Ex. C, p. 1.) The BonTerra report “ assessed the occurrence of six special- status species” that the EIR did not. (Id.) Notably, the EIR concludes that seven specialstatus species “ may occur” on the Project site, however, BonTerra observed these species on the site. (Id.) Similarly, the EIR concluded that two special- status species were “ not expected” to occur on the site but were also observed by BonTerra. ( Id.) Had BonTerra’ s findings been incorporated into the EIR, these special- status species “ should have been identified as having been observed on the project site.” ( Id.)
By failing to accurately characterize the environmental setting of the project site, the EIR has downplayed the biological diversity of the site and its importance to federally and state protected California gnatcatcher. Without an accurate description of the environmental setting, Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

the EIR’ s conclusion that the Project will not result in significant impacts to biological resources remains unsupported by substantial evidence until it is revised and recirculated to accurately account for the diversity of the project site.

B. The EIR’ s Failed to Adequately Analyze Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.

Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project would result in significant impacts to wildlife including habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, vehicle collisions, and bird-window collisions.
i. Habitat loss
Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR made “ no attempt” to assess the impact of the Project on habitat loss and loss of numerical or productive capacities of any of the wildlife species potentially affected by the Project. ( Ex. D, p. 32.) Instead, the EIR merely “ speculates the ‘ loss of wildlife habitat would be considered limited in relation to the total amount of wildlife habitat available in the BSA region.” ( Id.) However, Dr. Smallwood was able to calculate the loss of numerical and productive capacities for birds as a result of habitat lost as a result of the Project.

He determined that the Project would result in the loss of 191 nest sites and 265 nest attempts per year. (Id. at p. 33.) Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood determined that reproductive capacity of the Project site would be lost, resulting in 845 birds per year denied to California. ( Id.) Dr.

Smallwood concluded that the loss of 845 birds per year would be substantial and “[ m]any of these birds would be special- status species such as Cooper’ s hawks, California thrashers, and some would be threatened or endangered species such as California gnatcatcher. ( Id.) This is a significant impact that must be analyzed and mitigated in the EIR. ii. Interference with wildlife movement
Dr. Smallwood determined that the EIR improperly concluded that the Project would not interfere with wildlife movement. ( Ex. D, p. 34.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:

The EIR] [] concludes that the project site does occur within a movement corridor, but downplays the project’ s interference with wildlife movement within the corridor by claiming ‘ The Project’ s impact area is located at the terminus of the continuous open space . . . therefore, it would not disrupt wildlife movement along the corridor, but would truncate the open space.’ Lost in this analysis is the result that wildlife would not longer be capable of moving within the truncated space. In other words, the [ P]roject would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

Id.) Thus, the EIR’ s findings that the Project would prevent wildlife from moving throughout the “ truncated space” created by the Project is not consistent with its determination that the Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

Project would not interfere with wildlife movement. Furthermore, the EIR failed to provide any support for its conclusions regarding the Project’ s interference with wildlife movement and b]ased on what [ was] reported, Psomas did not record or measure wildlife movement in any way.” ( Id.) However, Dr. Smallwood determined that “[ t]he [ P]roject would in fact eliminate a sizeable portion of the existing riparian environment . . . [ which] are one of the few widelyrecognized corridors in natural settings, forming a backbone of wildlife movement in the area.” Id.)
iii. Wildlife- vehicle collisions
Dr. Smallwood also found that the EIR fails to account for significant impacts to wildlife from road collision mortality from increased traffic generated by the Project. As Dr. Smallwood explains, vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood provides several studies demonstrating significant animal deaths due to collisions in the thousands annually per 100 km of road. ( Id.) The EIR has failed to analyze whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in significant local impacts to wildlife.

Based on the Project’ s annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict that the Project would result in 13,925 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. (Ex. A, p. 36.) Yet, the EIR failed to analyze this significant impact ( Id.) The EIR must be revised to analyze, disclose, and mitigate this significant impact.
iv. Bird-window collisions
Dr. Smallwood also found the EIR fails to analyze potentially significant impacts to avian species from window collision mortality. Dr. Smallwood determined that the Project will result in approximately 1,359 to 1,518 annual bird deaths due to window collisions. ( Ex. A at p. 39.) Dr. Smallwood also notes that “[ t]he vast majority of these predicted deaths would be birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts even with the implementation of established mitigation measure.” ( Id. at 40.) “ Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality . . . the [] [ P]roject would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species.” ( Id.) The EIR must be revised to analyze and mitigate this significant impact. i. Cumulative impacts
Lastly, the EIR failed to properly analyze the Project’ s cumulative impacts. The EIR claims that “[ c]umulative impacts are related to site-specific impacts to biological resource and thus would be mitigated, as necessary, on a project- by-project basis,” and therefore assumes that Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts left over by inadequate mitigation of projectlevel impacts, and that project- specific environmental reviews prevent these residual impacts.” Ex. A, p. 41.) The EIR’ s interpretation of what constitutes a cumulative impact is incorrect and inconsistent with CEQA, which defines cumulative impacts as “ two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” ( 14 CCR § 15355.) Under this definition, “[ t]he individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project,” such as here, “ or a number of separate projects.” Id.)
Given this misunderstanding of what constitutes a cumulative impact, the EIR’ s conclusion that the Project “ would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources” is unsupported.

Ex. A, p. 41.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:

An aerial view of the landscape around the project site reveals very little wildlife habitat remains. If the project goes forward, the landscape would lose an additional 44 acres of wildlife habitat as well as some capacity for wildlife to move between the few isolated patches of habitat that remain. The environmental reviews of past projects did not avoid cumulative impacts, not with their analyses and not with the mitigation measures they implemented.

Id.)
VIII. The City’ s Responses to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Project’ s Impacts to Biological Resources Are Inadequate.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“ USFWS”) commented that, ( 1) the Project would compromise an existing habitat linkage for coastal California gnatcatcher and ( 2) as a signatory local government under the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregions Natural Community Conservation Plan/ Habitat Conservation Plan (“ NCCP/ HCP”), the City “ is responsible for reviewing project proposals within its jurisdiction for consistency with the NCCP/ HCP, and has the ability to extend authorization for Incidental Take of coastal Sage Scrub Species ( e.g., gnatcatcher) to Non-Participating Landowners.” In response, the City stated that it “[did] not believe that the fee mitigation option would be applicable to the Project, unless permitted by USFWS and CDFW” due to the Project being located within a NCCP Reserve “ Existing Use Area.”
This response is deficient for two reasons. First, the City simply dismissed USFWS’ s comment that the Project would comprise an existing habitat linkage for the gnatcatcher. The City failed to discuss how the Project’ s location within an existing habitat linkage area for the gnatcatcher would impact the species’ habitat. This is especially important given the Project is located within designated Critical Habitat for the gnat catcher and Dr. Smallwood’ s finding that Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

the Project would result in significant habitat loss. ( See supra, Section B(i).) Second, the City failed to acknowledge its requirement to review projects for their consistency with the NCCP/ HCP. Dr. Smallwood notes that while the DEIR does contain a consistency analysis, “ it is only cursory and fails to point out the agreement for early consultation with the CDFW and USFWS regarding potential impacts to covered species and appropriate mitigation.” ( Ex. E, p.

1.) In addition, the “ City only assumes that the USFWS and CDFW would not permit the fee option mitigation.” ( Id.) Without coordinating with the USFWS and CDFW the City cannot conclude that fee mitigation is not an option.

USFWS also commented that “[ w]hile the NCCP/ HCP does not identify any restrictions on existing landowner uses . . . within the Existing Use Areas . . . if a change in land use is proposed for such an area that will result in incidental take of a listed species such as the gnatcatcher, the Property Owner/ Developer must seek approval from the Service as is currently required under the Federal Endangered Species Act.” The USFWS added that “ that they recommend the Property Owner/ Developer conduct early coordination with USFWS . . . [ and] postpone[ e] completion of the EIR until coordination has occurred . . .” In response, the City stated that it “assumes that the Project would require the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the USFWS. Also, it is likely that CDFW will require the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit ITP) or a Consistency Determination pursuant to CESA for the Project.” The City makes assumptions about the actions it believes the agency will take. However, it is the City’ s duty to initiate consultation with USFWS because the development of a large mixed- use project would constitute a change in land use that would result in the incidental take of a listed species such as the gnatcatcher. ( Ex. E, p. 2.) And in Dr. Smallwood’ s expert opinion, the City’ s decision to avoid its duty to consult and coordinate with USFWS “ jeopardizes the continued existence of California gnatcatchers in the Project Area.” ( Id. at p. 3.) Without having consulted with USFWS as required, there is no evidence that the impacts to biological resources will be fully mitigated.

Without consultation, any proposed mitigation is merely theoretical.

The City’ s responses to USFWS demonstrate its failure to meaningfully engage with the agency and work toward minimizing and mitigating the Project’ s impacts on listed species. As such, the City’ s responses to USFWS do not reflect a good faith, reasoned analysis and are inadequate.

IX. The EIR’ s Analysis of the Project’ s Air Quality Impacts Is Not Supported By Substantial Evidence.

SWAPE reviewed and analyzed the EIR’ s analysis of the Project’ s air quality impacts and found that the EIR failed to adequately analyze potentially significant health risks due to the Project’ s diesel particulate matter emissions (“ DPM”), a known human carcinogen. The EIR concludes that the “ maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project would be 1 in one million” and therefore not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“ SCAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. F, Comments on Hills Preserve Project and EIR
October 29, 2024

at p. 1.) However, the EIR “ fails to mention the DPM impacts or evaluate the health risk associated with Project operation.” ( Id.)
SWAPE found that “[ w]hile the DEIR includes a [ health risk assessment (“ HRA”)] evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.” ( Id. at p. 2.) As a result, the HRA prepared for the Project fails to “ evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’ s total construction and operation,” thereby underestimating the Project’ s cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors. ( Id.)
SWAPE prepared a screening- level risk assessment and found that the excess cancer risk associated with the Project’ s DPM emissions during operation is approximately 10.8 in one million, and combined with the Project’ s construction- related cancer risk, the Project’ s total excess cancer risk is approximately 11.8 per million. (Id. at p. 5.) Thus, the Project’ s total excess cancer risk of 11.8 per million exceeds the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, contrary to the EIR’ s finding of 1 in one million.

Because the EIR failed to analyze the Project’ s total cancer risk resulting from DPM emissions, the EIR’ s conclusion that the Project does not exceed SCAQMD’ s significant threshold of 10 in one million is not supported by substantial evidence. SWAPE’ s comments constitute substantial evidence of a significant health risk that must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in the EIR.

CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that Project’ s environmental impact report be revised to adequately analyze and mitigate significant impacts and ensure compliance with CEQA. A revised EIR should be prepared and recirculated to address these comments.

Thank you for your attention to these comments.

Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | ( 510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
October 28, 2024
24228 00
Kylah Staley
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Peer Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts for the Hills Preserve Project
Dear Ms. Staley:

Baseline Environmental Consulting Baseline) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR) for the Hills Preserve Project project) located along the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, generally between Eucalyptus Drive to the west and Festival Drive to the east, in the City of Anaheim, California. It is our understanding that the project includes the phased development of up to 498 wrap style apartment units, six single family residences, and 80,000 square feet of commercial land uses. Based on our review of the DEIR, we have identified flaws in the analysis used to support the significance determinations for greenhouse gas GHG) emissions, as described in detail below.

INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF GHG MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on review of the DEIR, the reported unmitigated and mitigated annual GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project are summarized in Table 1. The project’ s primary sources of GHG emissions would be from energy use and vehicle trips, accounting for approximately 20 and 67 percent of the project’ s total GHG emissions, respectively. With implementation of mitigation measures MM) TRANS 1 through MM TRANS 5 and MM GHG 1 through MM GHG 3, the project’ s total unmitigated GHG emissions would be reduced by approximately 7.8 percent to 4,890 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year MTCO2e/ year), which exceeds the project level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/ year. As stated on page 4.7 36 of the DEIR, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to emissions of GHGs, even with implementation of mitigation measures. However, the DEIR does not demonstrate how proposed mitigation measures would reduce the project’ s GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Examples of inadequacies in the existing mitigation measures for GHG emissions, as well as recommendations for new mitigation measures, are provided below.

Ms. Kylah Staley
October 28, 2024

Table 1. Summary of Project GHG Emissions
Source
Unmitigated GHG
Emissions
MTCO2e/ year)
Mitigated GHG
Emissions
MTCO2e/ year)
Percent
Decrease After
Mitigation
Mobile 3,566 3,253 8.8%
Area 28 28 0.0%
Energy 1,066 967 9.3%
Water 75 75 0.0%
Solid Waste 152 152 0.0%
Refrigerants 1 1 0.0%
Stationary 44 44 0.0%
Construction 371 371 0.0%
Total 5,303 4,890 7.8%
Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes
Source: DEIR Tables 4.7 1 and 4.7 2.

MM GHG 1 limits the use of natural gas for the proposed multiple family residential building to cooking stoves and select common area fireplaces. According to the CalEEMod report for project operations in 2031 DEIR Appendix E), the project would still generate approximately 412 MTCO2e/ year from natural gas combustion after implementing MM GHG 1, which accounts for about 8.4 percent of the project’ s remaining GHG emissions after mitigation. Eliminating natural gas use for all appliances and plumbing across the project site residential and commercial) and designing all electric buildings would substantially reduce the project’ s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of this option.

MM GHG 2 requires the property owner/ developer to use diligent and good faith efforts to install and maintain solar power generation in the Project site to generate 15% of the project' s electrical demand.” According to the CalEEMod report for project operations in 2031 DEIR Appendix E), the project would still generate approximately 552 MTCO2e/ year from electricity consumption after implementing MM GHG 1, which accounts for about 11.3 percent of the project’ s remaining GHG emissions after mitigation. Installing a solar photovoltaic and battery storage system to supply 100 percent or more of the project’ s electrical demand on site would substantially reduce the project’s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of this option.

Ms. Kylah Staley
October 28, 2024

MM GHG 3 requires a Power Purchasing Agreement with Anaheim Public Utilities for the purchase of at least 60 percent green power” for the project’s electricity demand that cannot be produced on site, if available. To be conservative, the DEIR did not quantify the potential reduction in GHG emissions associated with implementing MM GHG 3 given that green power may not be available.” However, according to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100, Anaheim Public Utilities is required to increase their renewable energy portfolio to 60 percent by 2030. Therefore, implementing MM GHG 3 would only provide a temporary reduction in the project’ s GHG emissions leading up to 2030. Moreover, Anaheim Public Utilities allows customers to purchase up to 100 percent renewable energy which would substantially reduce the project’ s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of this option.

The project would include a total of approximately 1,360 parking spaces: 1,019 residential spaces and 341 commercial spaces. According to page 4.7 38 of the DEIR, the project would install approximately 81 Electric Vehicle EV) chargers. However, it’s not clear how the installation of these EV charging stations would be enforced, because there is no discussion of EV parking in the DEIR as part of the project design or to meet specific regulatory requirements, and EV parking is not identified as a part of a mitigation measure; therefore, the installation of 81 EV chargers does not appear to be an enforceable action. Moreover, the project could include mitigation that goes beyond the minimum regulatory requirements for EV parking. For example, a project mitigation measure could require the multi family residential building to comply with the voluntary Tier 2 EV requirements described in the most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards Code CALGreen). For the proposed multi family building, CALGreen Tier 2 would require 15 percent of the total parking spaces 153 spaces) to be equipped with Level 2 EV Supply Equipment and 40 percent of the total parking spaces 408 spaces) to be EV Ready” for installing charging equipment later. Supporting the transition to all electric vehicles with zero GHG emissions could substantially reduce the project’s GHG emissions. The DEIR did not discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of this option.

COMPARISON TO SIMILAR PROJECT
In August 2024, a Recirculated DEIR was published for the Harmony Grove Village South Project HGVSP) near Escondido, California,1about 80 miles south of the proposed project. The HGSVP proposes to build 453 dwelling units for a community that would consume approximately 3,150 megawatt hours MWh) of electricity per year. The HGVSP has committed to designing all electric buildings i.e., no natural gas connections or appliances), installing EV chargers for all 453 dwelling units, and installing rooftop solar photovoltaic systems that would generate 1 https:// ceqanet. opr. ca.gov/ 2015081071/ 2
Ms. Kylah Staley
October 28, 2024

approximately 6,300 MWh per year, which is about twice as much as the annual energy consumption for the HGVSP.

The proposed Hills Preserve Project would develop 498 apartment units and consume approximately 2,117 MWH per year page 4.5 15 of DEIR), which is similar in scale to the HGVSP. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that it is feasible for projects of similar scale in Southern California to substantially reduce GHG emissions beyond the level of effort presented in the DEIR for the Hills Preserve Project.

CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the project does not provide a thorough feasibility analysis of mitigation measures to reduce the project’s GHG emissions to a less than significant level or to the maximum extent feasible for a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, Baseline recommends that the City of Anaheim address the environmental concerns described above and recirculate the DEIR for public review.

Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton
Principal Environmental Engineer

ATTACHMENT A
RESUME
Patrick Sutton, P.E.

Principal Environmental Engineer
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
Education
M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California Davis
B.S., Environmental Science,
Dickinson College
Registration
Professional Engineer No. 13609 RI)
Years of Experience
20 Years
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.

Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/ II Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/ NEPA evaluations for air quality, GHGs, noise, energy, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental concerns.

For mixed use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. For large transportation improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The air quality assessments include the evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/ NEPA and to determine conformity with the State
Implementation Plan. The hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically analysis of aerially deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors. Mr. Sutton is also an active member of ASTM International and is the author of the Standard Practice for Low Flow Purging and Sampling Used for Groundwater Monitoring.

Project Experience
Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program and project level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.

I 680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’ s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Altamont Corridor Expressway ACE/ Forward) Project EIR/ EIS. Prepared a program and project level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.

Stonegate Residential Subdivision EIR. Prepared a project level Hydrology and Water Quality analysis for a residential development located within the 100 year floodplain. The proposed project included modifications to existing levees and flood channels.

BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/ EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

EXHIBIT B
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 1 of 20
October 24, 2024
Rebecca Davis and Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Review and Commentary on Potential Wildfire Evacuation Effects from the Hills Preserve Project Dear Ms. Davis and Ms. Staley:

Background
The Hills Preserve Project is located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, just east of Eucalyptus Drive, in the City of Anaheim, California. The proposed development will consist of at most 498 luxury for-rent apartments, a private club offering extensive amenities and services, six single family residential lots, and up to 80,000 square feet of office space.

Evacuation of the Hills Preserve Project during a wildfire emergency could generate in excess of 1,100 additional vehicles in the area and could adversely impact the egress of current residents of surrounding neighborhoods. The evacuation experts at KLD Associates, Inc. (KLD) were tasked with reviewing the potential impacts of evacuating the Hills Preserve Project on surrounding communities.

KLD Expertise
KLD has been in the evacuation business for more than 40 years, developing the Dynamic Evacuation DYNEV) simulation model under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the early 1980’ s in response to the incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania in 1979. Since DYNEV’ s inception, KLD has done more than one hundred evacuation studies in the United States and abroad. KLD conducted the evacuation studies for every (56 sites) active nuclear power plant (NPP) after the 2020 U.S. census in accordance with federal regulations. These studies were extensively reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) and found to be adequate and compliant with federal regulations and guidance. KLD has also done evacuation studies for all four NPP in Canada, six NPP in Japan, the only NPP in Slovenia, and the only NPP in the United Arab Emirates. 1500 Route 112
Building 9, Suite A
Port Jefferson Station, NY 11776 USA
Phone: 631.257.5493
Fax: 631.382.8252
www. kldassociates. com
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 2 of 20
KLD was contracted by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG& E) in late 2018 after the Camp Fire which devastated Paradise, California to use our decades of experience in NPP evacuation to perform a pilot wildfire evacuation study for a cluster of communities in the San Lorenzo Valley between Santa Cruz and San Jose, California. Since that pilot study, KLD has also done wildfire evacuation studies for the following cities, communities and counties:

Ashland, Oregon
Berkeley, California
Issaquah, Washington
Laguna Beach, California
Oakmont (Santa Rosa), California
Rancho Peñasquitos ( San Diego), California
Sammamish, Washington
Santa Barbara County, California
Sonoma Valley, California
South Morro Hills (Oceanside), California
Ocean Hills (Oceanside), California
I have spent my entire 22-year career at KLD working on evacuation projects. I have served as an evacuation subject matter expert ( SME) for several private utilities, for the Nuclear Energy Institute NEI), and for the American Nuclear Society (ANS). I am called upon regularly by the U.S. NRC and FEMA to provide expert opinion on evacuation. I have worked with more than 100 local, state and federal emergency planning agencies on emergency planning and evacuation studies.

Below is a summary of KLD’ s findings on the various portions of the Hills Preserve Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ( DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report ( FEIR ) which pertain to wildfire evacuation.

Commentary on Baseline Evacuation Analysis
Appendix S of the DEIR is the baseline evacuation travel time analysis ( ETTA), titled “Evacuation Travel Time Analysis for The Hills Preserve Project,” dated March 28, 2024, and prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ( LLG).

The ETTA assumes a fire in the Deer Canyon open space immediately east of the project site with a westerly wind. The ETTA further assumes an evacuation of the City of Anaheim Know Your Way (KYW) Zones 9, 10, 11, and 13 as shown in Figure 6 of the study. All evacuees proceed west on Santa Ana Canyon Rd to the intersection with Imperial Highway. An aerial image of this intersection from Google Earth is included as Figure 1. Table 1 of the ETTA provides the computations used to estimate the impact of the project traffic on evacuation travel time. The following comments are offered regarding the computations in Table 1 of the ETTA.

Column (3) of the table provides the percentage of time that the westbound through movement has a green signal. This percentage is then multiplied by the per lane capacity – column (4) – to get an adjusted capacity – column (5). The peak hour volume – column (6) – is then divided by the adjusted capacity to estimate the evacuation travel time. Generally speaking, this approach is justifiable for a “ quick and dirty” or “back of the envelope” computation. However, there are several issues with this computation:

1. Lost time is not considered. Lost time at a traffic signal is defined as the sum of the startup lost time (the delay from when the signal turns green until the first vehicle in queue begins to move due to the need to react to the start of the green phase) and the clearance- interval lost time (as the light changes from yellow to red, vehicles slow down Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 3 of 20
and eventually stop prior to the light turning red). Section 3.3.3 of the U.S. Department of Transportation’ s Traffic Signal Timing Manual suggests a default value of two (2) seconds per signal phase for the start-up lost time and two (2) seconds per signal phase for the clearance interval lost time for a total of four (4) seconds of lost time per phase.

Typical signal cycle lengths are 120 seconds. According to Figure 3-1 in Appendix L Traffic Circulation Analysis” dated March 28, 2024) of the DEIR, this intersection has eight (8) phases. Typically, two (2) phases are sequenced together (moving at the same time) at the signal. The total lost time at the signal can be approximated as 8 ÷ 2 x 4 (8 phases total, 2phases atatime, 4 secondsoflost time per phase) = 16 seconds, or 13.3% of the 120 second signal cycle. The total green time minus the total red time and lost time is referred toas the “effective green time.” If there are significant all-red phases typical for areas with high pedestrian activities or high- speed limits) and/ or pedestrian exclusive phase, the effective green time (and intersection vehicle capacity) can be significantly impacted. 2.

Column ( 4) of the table assumes3through lanes westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Rd. While there are in fact 3through lanes on the approach from Santa Ana Canyon Rd at the intersection, there is a lane drop resulting in2 through lanes westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Rd less than a mile west of the intersection. Figure 2, taken from Google Earth, shows the study intersection asa red oval and ablue line where the right-most through lane is dropped, just west ofthe intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd with Royal Oak Rd. Figure 3shows the lane drop ingreater detail. In an evacuation, this lane drop would present asignificant bottleneck on westbound Santa Ana Canyon Road. Queuing from this bottleneck would likely propagate tothe study intersection and impact the through lane capacity. 3.

The table assumes that all evacuees will continue through westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Rd. There are several issues with this: a.

The City of Anaheim “ Know Your Way” (KYW) maps1 for Zones 9, 10, 11 and 13 encourage evacuees touse Santa Ana Canyon Rd to access the 91 freeway California State Route 91 – SR- 91). As shown in Figure 1, evacuees would have to turn right at the study intersection toaccess SR-91. Although itis not focused on evacuation traffic, Figures 5-5 and 5-6 of the Traffic Circulation Analysis ( Appendix Lof the DEIR) also show this desired path for vehicles generated by the project and other vehicles inthe area as 58.5% of traffic during the PM peak hour (761 ÷ 1,300) turns right versus 27.4% ( 356 ÷ 1, 300) of traffic continuing through and 51.2% through (844 ÷ 1, 648) and 32.3% right 533 ÷ 1,648) during the AM peak hour. This situation would be exacerbated in the evacuation study as the fire being east of the project would result in 100% ofthe project traffic traveling west to the study intersection with significantly higher volumes during the peak hours. b. Figure 4shows that
there are two right turn pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd westbound atthe study intersection.

These turn pockets would be used to turn right onto Imperial Highway a
and access SR-91. Asshown, the pockets are approximately 360 feet long. Assuming vehicle length of 20feet ( includes spacing between front and back bumpers and the vehicles infront and behind 1https://www.anaheim.net/ 6063/ Know- Your-Way-Evacuation- Zones
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 4 of 20
in the queue), each pocket can store about 18 vehicles, or 36 vehicles total.

Figure 11 in Appendix S of the DEIR indicates that 9,461 vehicles will arrive at the study intersection on Santa Ana Canyon Rd westbound. If any significant percentage of these vehicles turn right at the intersection to access SR-91, the turn pockets will not have adequate storage. Queues will spill back into the right-most through lane and possibly the center through lane impeding the egress of through vehicles.
c. If the fire is to the east of the project site, it would not be prudent to route vehicles onto SR-91 eastbound as they may be driving into smoke and/ or flames. Given the discussion in items a and b above, it is likely that a significant amount of traffic will turn right from Santa Ana Canyon Rd westbound onto Imperial Highway northbound and then try to access SR-91 westbound. As shown in Figure 5, the ramp is two lanes at first, but narrows to a single lane as it merges with the freeway. The ramp is a cloverleaf ramp, which is a curved, low-speed ramp with a capacity ranging between 800 and 1,200 vehicles per hour. In an evacuation environment, it is highly likely this ramp to SR-91 westbound will be the bottleneck rather than the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Imperial Highway. Yes, Section 15 of Appendix L of the DEIR did consider SR-91 ramp operations, but this was for everyday traffic, not for evacuation traffic.

Table 1 offers an alternate computation of the evacuation travel time for the westbound through movement on Santa Ana Canyon Rd accounting for the factors discussed in items 1 and 2 above. The items in bold font in Table 1 represent differences from the computations in the base evacuation study.

As highlighted in Table 1, accounting for these additional factors results in an evacuation travel time difference of 43 minutes. On page 4 of Appendix I of the FEIR, LLG states “ while there are no adopted criteria or thresholds determining whether or not evacuation travel time increases are significant, it would be our finding based on engineering judgment that any increase less than 20 to 30 minutes would be inconsequential…” Thus, an increase in evacuation travel time of 43 minutes, which exceeds 30 minutes, would be significant. In addition, nuclear power plants in the United States are heavily regulated and are required to have detailed evacuation time estimate studies done at least decennially after each census. Item 6 in Section IV of Appendix E to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 10CFR50, Appendix E) requires nuclear power plant operators to fully update their evacuation time estimate study if the population ( or increase in number of evacuating vehicles) causes ETE to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The federal threshold of 30 minutes for significance agrees with LLG’ s engineering judgment.

Accounting for vehicles making the right turn at the study intersection to head towards SR- 91, the limited capacity of the right turn pockets, and the potential bottleneck of the SR-91 westbound access ramp requires a level of computation and traffic/ evacuation modeling that is well beyond the rigor of the evacuation studies in the DEIR and FEIR. See the “ Additional Commentary” section below for additional discussion.

Commentary on Supplementary Evacuation Analysis
Appendix I of the FEIR provides a supplemental ETTA, titled “ Supplemental Evacuation Modeling Memorandum,” dated September 13, 2024, also prepared by LLG.

The supplemental ETTA was prepared in response to comments received on the DEIR regarding the potential for a fire in the open space east of the Anaheim Hills area that would require residents to the Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 5 of 20
east of the proposed development in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue (KYW Zones 1, 2 and 3) to be evacuated. In addition to those zones evacuating, two scenarios were considered regarding the traffic from the potential development: ( 1) 25% project voluntary resident and 100% project commercial evacuation, and (2) 50% project voluntary resident and 100% project commercial evacuation. 25% voluntary evacuation of KYW Zones 8 and 9 is also assumed. The supplemental study focuses on the intersection of Santa Anna Canyon Rd and Weir Canyon Rd where evacuating vehicles from the project would intersect with evacuees from Zones 1 and 2. Figure 6 is an aerial image of the supplemental study intersection.

As discussed in the supplemental study assumptions:
75% of the vehicles evacuating from the project site will be directed eastbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road and 25% will be directed westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road.

Vehicles evacuation KYW Zone 8 “will utilize a combination of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road”. The study should specify the assumed percentage split between those roads. 75% of the vehicles evacuating from KYW Zone 9 will be directed eastbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road and 25% will be directed westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road.

Vehicles evacuating from the Festival Center would be split evenly ( 50%) eastbound and westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road

vehicles per multifamily residence. What is the source of this data? It sounds contrary to common sense.

segment capacity was developed for the northbound through lanes and eastbound left turn lanes approaching the Weir Canyon/ Santa Ana Canyon intersection.” The study then provides Tables 1 and 2 which show the analysis for the northbound through lanes from Weir Canyon Rd for the two aforementioned project scenarios. However, there are no tables provided showing the analysis for the eastbound left turn lanes on Santa Ana Canyon Rd. These must be provided to compute the evacuation time and estimate the impact of the evacuating traffic from the proposed development.

Figure 11 in the base study ( Appendix S of the DEIR) does an excellent job of showing the expected evacuation volumes at each of the intersections leading to the study intersection. There is no corresponding figure in the supplemental study, making it difficult to validate whether the computations in Tables 1 and 2 of the supplemental study are valid.

Figure 7 shows that there are two left turn pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd eastbound at the supplemental study intersection. These turn pockets would be used to turn left onto Weir Canyon Rd northbound and access SR-91. As shown, the pockets are approximately 580 feet long. Assuming a vehicle length of 20 feet (includes spacing between front and back bumpers and the vehicles in front and behind in the queue), each pocket can store about 29 vehicles, or 58 vehicles total. The expected evacuation volumes at the eastbound Santa Ana Canyon Rd approach to the study intersection are not provided in the supplemental study ( they should be), but they will be well in excess of 1,000 vehicles based on the evacuation assumptions listed in the study. All of these vehicles would turn left at the intersection to access SR- 91 (continuing through would take them closer to the fire and to a single lane road that eventually ends at a stop sign at the intersection with Gypsum Canyon Road). The left turn pockets will not have adequate storage; queuing will be significant.

Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 6 of 20
The maps for KYW Zones 1, 2, 8 and 92 all advise evacuees to travel to Weir Canyon Road to access SR91. As discussed above, if the fire is east of Anaheim Hills, eastbound SR-91 is not a viable evacuation route. Evacuees will instead try to access SR-91 westbound. As shown in Figure 8, the ramp is two lanes at first, but narrows to a single lane as it merges with the freeway. The ramp is a cloverleaf ramp, which is a curved, low-speed ramp with a capacity ranging between 800 and 1,200 vehicles per hour. In an evacuation environment, it is highly likely this ramp to SR-91 westbound will be the bottleneck rather than the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Weir Canyon Rd.

Similar to the discussion above regarding the evacuation travel times in the base evacuation study Appendix S of the DEIR), the computations in Tables 1 and 2 of the supplemental study have some shortcomings:

1. Lost time is not accounted for. According to Figure 3-1 in Appendix L of the DEIR, this intersection also has 8 phases. Thus, like the study intersection in the base study, the estimated total lost time is about 13.3% of an estimated 120 second signal cycle.

2. The supplemental study assumes that the three through lanes on Weir Canyon Rd northbound becomes Yorba Linda Blvd) continue. They do not. Figure 9, taken from Google Earth, shows the study intersection as a red oval and a blue line where the right-most through lane is dropped, just north of the intersection of Yorba Linda Blvd with La Palma Ave, approximately ¾ of a mile from the study intersection. Figure 10 shows the lane drop in greater detail. In an evacuation, this lane drop would present a significant bottleneck on northbound Yorba Linda Blvd. Queuing from this bottleneck would likely propagate to the study intersection and impact the through lane capacity.

Table 2 offers an alternate computation of the evacuation travel time for the northbound through movement on Weir Canyon Rd accounting for the factors discussed in items 1 and 2 above. The items in bold font in Table 2 represent differences from the computations in the base evacuation study. As highlighted in Table 2, accounting for these additional factors results in an evacuation travel time difference of 11 minutes. While the difference in evacuation travel time with and without the project is not significant per the aforementioned thresholds, the computed evacuation travel times are significantly higher (nearly double) those shown in the supplemental study. Nonetheless, the queueing from the left turning vehicles from Santa Ana Canyon Rd eastbound and the vehicles trying to access SR91 westbound are more likely to dictate the evacuation travel time than the northbound through movement from Weir Canyon Road. Accounting for these issues requires a level of computation and traffic/ evacuation modeling that is well beyond the rigor of the evacuation studies in the DEIR and FEIR.

See the “Additional Commentary” section below for additional discussion.

Commentary on Proposed Mitigation Measures

4.8.6 (pages 4.8-48,49) defines these measures in greater detail. Below is a brief summary of those mitigation measures and a qualitative assessment of their impact on evacuation travel time.

MM HAZ- 5 – Closed Circuit Television ( CCTV) Cameras:

The property owner/ developer shall fund and implement CCTV cameras at Imperial Highway/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills Road/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Fairmont Boulevard/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Deer Canyon Road/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, Festival Drive/ Santa Ana Canyon Road, and 2 https:// www. anaheim. net/ 6063/ Know- Your- Way-Evacuation- Zones Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 7 of 20
Weir Canyon Road/ Santa Ana Canyon Road. Page 4.8-39 states “[ t]o improve the City’ s ability to more effectively manage traffic along Santa Ana Canyon Road during a future evacuation, the Project would include implementation of MM HAZ-5.” No further explanation is provided.

Cities use CCTV at intersections for several reasons:

1. As detectors to tell the traffic signal controller ( computer/ box on the side of the road which communicates the green, yellow and red timings to the signal) the traffic on the competing ( North/ South versus East/ West) approaches to the intersection and adjust the signal timing accordingly. For example, if the westbound traffic is three times as much as the northbound traffic, the CCTV tells the signal controller and 25% of green time would be allocated to northbound and 75% to westbound.

2. As surveillance for any incidents ( traffic accidents, stalled vehicle, etc.). If an incident is observed, an emergency vehicle or tow truck can be dispatched to remove the incident and restore traffic flow. This would require someone to be actively observing the feed from the cameras.

3. As a live feed to a traffic management center ( TMC - usually located in the city center) where a traffic engineer can observe traffic patterns and adjust signal timings ( assuming the signal controller is wired or has Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection with the TMC) and send them to the signal controller to better service the traffic at the intersection.

4. Image/ video processing software could be used with #2 above to automatically determine if speeds are abnormal and there is possibly an incident eliminating the need for someone to physically monitor the CCTV feed. However, this is not typical at an intersection where a red light would stop traffic and speeds would go to zero ( similar to an incident). This technology is more typically used on a freeway where vehicles should not be stopped unless there is an incident or traffic congestion.

These measures are commonly referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems ( ITS), or the use of technology to better facilitate the flow of traffic.

Simply saying that CCTV will be installed at intersections is an incomplete picture. If you put CCTV at an intersection and the camera feeds are not communicating with the signal controller or with the TMC in some way, then the feed from the CCTV will do nothing to help evacuation during a wildfire.

If, however, the CCTV is installed and used for those ITS measures above, then certainly it would be beneficial to evacuation. The developer must commit to installing CCTV and using the feed from those cameras for at least one of those ITS purposes if they want to claim that it is a mitigation measure to help with evacuation.

Quantifying the impact on evacuation of this mitigation measure is difficult. However, qualitatively, optimizing traffic signals with the use of live traffic demand data from CCTV ( as discussed in Items 1 and 3) would certainly improve signal timing and intersection capacity/ performance. Similarly, the use of CCTV to detect incidents, quickly remove them and restore capacity will help to facilitate the flow of evacuating traffic.

Additional Commentary
The following additional comments are offered:

Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 8 of 20
Shadow Evacuation: Shadow Evacuation is the voluntary evacuation of people outside the declared evacuation zone. Research has shown that shadow evacuation is a major concern during emergencies. The supplemental evacuation study did consider shadow evacuation in assuming that a percentage of Zones 8 and 9 would evacuation when Zones 1, 2, and 3 would evacuate. The base study, however, did not account for shadow evacuation. Additional vehicles evacuating could result in additional traffic congestion, additional delays, and longer evacuation times.

Regional Evacuation: Appendix A of the base evacuation study did consider a number of historical fires in the area and use meteorological data and firespread modeling to determine possible fires that would impact the area. What if there were a major fire in the undeveloped area east of Anaheim Hills with high winds that were casting embers for several miles necessitating the evacuation of all KYW Zones (1 through 15)? What would be the impact of the proposed development?
Traffic/ Evacuation Simulation Models: Appendix B of the base evacuation study provides outputs for a single intersection in the study from intersection capacity analysis software.

Commercially available traffic simulation software (Vissim, AIMSUN, etc.) is available to build traffic simulation models and estimate traffic flow (and evacuation time) through multiple intersections in a roadway network. Using such software would address some of the concerns raised above regarding additional movements ( right turns from Santa Ana Canyon Road westbound onto Imperial Highway northbound and left turns from Santa Ana Canyon Road eastbound onto Weir Canyon Road northbound) at the study intersections and the impacts of queuing and spillback at neighboring intersections to the study intersections. Typically developing these models with several intersections and roadways are more time-consuming and costly, which has obvious budget concerns, but they do provide a much clearer and more accurate picture of what the traffic situation may be during an emergency evacuation. An effective evacuation plan should always use the best tools available.

Conclusion
The evacuation travel time analysis done in Appendix S of the DEIR and in Appendix I of the FEIR are typical for a quick and cost-effective analysis. However, the approach taken does overlook some glaring issues such as queuing and spillback from neighboring intersections. In the real world, the roadway system does not end at the intersection being analyzed. Downstream intersections and bottlenecks must be considered. This letter documents several issues with the evacuation travel time analyses done in the DEIR and the FEIR, which should be corrected and the new results considered prior to issuing the permits for this development.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact me via email kweinisch@kldassociates. com) or on my cell phone at
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Weinisch
President
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page9 of 20
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 10 of 20
Figure 1. Intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Imperial Highway Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 11 of 20
Figure 2. Lane Drop West of Study Intersection
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 12 of 20
Figure 3. Lane Drop on Westbound Santa Ana Canyon Rd
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 13 of 20
Figure 4. Length of Right Turn Pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd Westbound at Intersection with Imperial Highway Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 14 of 20
Figure 5. Ramp from Imperial Highway Northbound to the SR-91 Westbound Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 15 of 20
Figure 6. Intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd and Weir Canyon Rd Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 16 of 20
Figure 7. Length of Left Turn Pockets on Santa Ana Canyon Rd Eastbound at Intersection with Weir Canyon Rd Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 17 of 20
Figure 8. Ramp from Weir Canyon Rd Northbound to the SR-91 Westbound Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 18 of 20
Figure 9. Lane Drop North of Study Intersection
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 19 of 20
Figure 10. Lane Drop on Northbound Yorba Linda Blvd
Hills Preserve Project KLD Associates, Inc.

Wildfire Evacuation Concerns Page 20 of 20
Table 1. Travel Time Analysis Summary ( Base Study)
Traffic Scenario
1)
WBT
V/C Ratio
2)
Intersection
V/C Ratio
3)
WBT %
Green
Time
1) / (2)
4)
Effective
Green
Time
Factor 3
5)
Capacity
1700 vphpl
2 Lanes)
6)
Adjusted
Capacity
3) * (4) * (5)
7)
Peak
Hour
Volume
8)
Travel
Time
7) / (6)
A] Without Project 0.82 1.541 53% 86.7% 3,400 veh/ hr 1,562 vehicles 8,343 vehicles

5.34 hours or
321 minutes
B] With Project 0.82 1.541 53% 86.7% 3,400 veh/ hr 1,562 vehicles 9,461 vehicles

6.06 hours or
364 minutes
Travel Time Difference 0.72 hours or
43 minutes
Table 2. Travel Time Analysis Summary ( Supplemental Study – Scenario 2) Traffic Scenario
1)
WBT
V/C Ratio
2)
Intersection
V/C Ratio
3)
WBT %
Green
Time
1) / (2)
4)
Effective
Green
Time
Factor3
5)
Capacity
1700 vphpl
2 Lanes)
6)
Adjusted
Capacity
3) * (4) * (5)
7)
Peak
Hour
Volume
8)
Travel
Time
7) / (6)
A] Without Project 0.77 1.369 56% 86.7% 3,400 veh/ hr 1,650 vehicles 5,186 vehicles

3.14 hours or
189 minutes
B] With Project 0.77 1.462 53% 86.7% 3,400 veh/ hr 1,562 vehicles 5,186 vehicles

3.32 hours or
200 minutes
Travel Time Difference 0.18 hours or
11 minutes
3 16 seconds of lost time per 120 second cycle. Thus 104 seconds of effective green time per 120 second cycle, or 86.7%.

Kevin Weinisch, P.E.

President
KLD Associates, Inc.

Background
Since joining the company in August 2002, Kevin Weinisch has worked extensively on developing evacuation plans and Evacuation Time Estimates ( ETE) for nuclear power plants (NPPs) and other human made and natural disasters especially wildfire) in the United States and abroad. Having worked on the ETE studies for all 65 NPP sites in the U.S., all four NPP sites in Canada, six sites in Japan, one in Slovenia, and one in the United Arab Emirates, Mr.

Weinisch is one of the nation’ s foremost experts on evacuation studies. He has served as a subject matter expert SME) for various utilities and for the Nuclear Energy Institute. He is called upon regularly by federal and local agencies to provide advice on ETE studies. During his 22-year career, Mr. Weinisch has interacted with some of the largest utilities in the country, as well as hundreds of local and state emergency management agencies. He has managed hundreds of traffic engineering and ETE projects with budgets ranging from several thousand dollars to in excess of one million dollars. He has a proven traffic record of delivering projects on time and within budget.

Mr. Weinisch is well versed in all aspects of emergency planning, traffic engineering principles, traffic simulation, traffic mitigation, traffic safety, maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) and capacity estimation.

Project Experience
PG& E, Pilot Evacuation Study, Santa Cruz County, CA – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value: $650,000 (2019 – 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on a pilot evacuation study for seven communities in Santa Cruz County, California. The objective of the study was to apply KLD’ s years of NPP ETE experience and the DYNEV model to evacuation planning and computation of ETE for wildfires. The pilot study was commissioned by Pacific Gas & Electric ( PG& E) in response to the deadly wildfire in Paradise, California in November 2018 that killed more than 80 people due to fast-spreading fire and limited evacuation routes. The pilot study explored different techniques ( contraflow, traffic control, limiting the number of evacuation vehicles) to reduce evacuation time and potentially save lives in the process. An emergency planning website and mobile application were developed for Santa Cruz County to educate the public based on the results of the wildfire evacuation study. KLD partnered with evacuation experts from Louisiana State University and Old Dominion University on the study.

City of Laguna Beach, Wildfire Evacuation Study, Laguna Beach, CA – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value:
200,000 (2019 – 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on an evacuation study for the City of Laguna Beach. The scope of work was similar to the Santa Cruz County study discussed above. Laguna Beach is a coastal city nestled amongst various county/ state parks and open spaces. There are only three evacuation routes servicing the city of nearly 23,000 permanent residents – California State Highway 1 (CA-1) northbound, CA-1 southbound, and CA-133 northbound. The study computed the evacuation time with all three evacuation routes available and with each of the evacuation routes closed individually to estimate the impact on evacuation time. The results of the study were

EDUCATION
MS, Transportation Engineering, Polytechnic University, 2005 BS, Chemical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, 2002

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Professional Engineering in New York #084968
used to update the city’s emergency plan, including updating the traffic management plan and evacuation routing.

An emergency planning website and mobile application were developed for this project to educate the public based on the results of the wildfire evacuation study.

City of Ashland, Wildfire Evacuation Study, Ashland, OR – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value: $40,000 (2020 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on an evacuation study for the City of Ashland, Oregon. The study is also similar in scope to the Santa Cruz County and Laguna Beach studies discussed above. Ashland, similar to Laguna, is surrounded by large fuel sources and has limited evacuation routes available – Interstate 5 north and south, and State Highway 99 north and south. The study considered a fire to the north such that everyone must evacuate the city southbound and a fire to the south such that everyone must evacuate northbound. The results of the study will be used to update the city’s emergency plan, including updating the traffic management plan and evacuation routing.

Ocean Hills Community, Wildfire Evacuation Study, Oceanside, CA – Senior Project Manager. Dollar Value:
20,000 (February 2021 – December 2021)
Kevin served as the Senior Project Manager on an evacuation study for the Ocean Hills Community ( small private community with about 8,000 permanent residents) in the City of Oceanside, CA. The scope for this study was similar to the scopes for the Santa Cruz, Laguna Beach and Ashland studies discussed above. One key difference in this study was that a wildfire specific emergency plan template was developed for the Ocean Hills Community.

The template followed FEMA’ s emergency planning framework. KLD outlined the plan and highlighted key areas that the community ( e.g., identifying reception centers, identifying transportation resources for vulnerable population, etc.) had to work on in the future to complete the emergency plan. This template will also be used by the City of Oceanside to help other communities in the city develop wildfire specific emergency plans.

Memberships
Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) Member, NEI Member, ANS Member, TRB Member Publications
The impact of shadow evacuation on evacuation time estimates for nuclear power plants” – Journal of Emergency Management, March/ April 2015, Volume 13, Number 2, Co-authored with Paul Brueckner.

The impact of a major earthquake on the evacuation of the emergency planning zone of a nuclear power plant” – Journal of Emergency Management, March/ April 2015, Volume 13, Number 2, Co-authored with Rebecca Cohen, EIT.

Always Have an Escape Route” – Transportation Management and Engineering ( TME) Magazine, October 2005, Volume 10, No. 4, Co-authored with Reuben Goldblatt, PE, PTOE.

Evacuation Planning, Human Factors, and Traffic Engineering: Developing Systems for Training and Effective Response” – Transportation Research ( TR) News, May- June 2005, No. 238, Co-authored with Reuben Goldblatt, PE, PTOE.

Honors and Awards
2007 American Council of Engineering Companies ( ACEC) of New York Platinum Award for Engineering Excellence for contributions to the Evacuation Time Estimates for the Indian Point Energy Center. 2006 Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) Young Consultants Award for efforts in developing the Evacuation Time Estimates for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. 2004 Intelligent Transportation Systems ( ITS) New York Best Student Paper for paper entitled, “ Implementing ITS Technologies to Facilitate an Emergency Evacuation”.

EXHIBIT C
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Nick Taylor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805 17 October 2024
RE: Hills Preserve Project
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to update my 25 September 2024 comments on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Hills Preserve Project. My update follows my receipt of the biological resources technical report (BonTerra 2005) that had been prepared in support of the Deer Canyon Estates Project on the same project site. BonTerra had surveyed the site for wildlife in 2002-2003, but the report was not made available with the Hills Preserve Project DEIR.

With the findings of BonTerra (2005), 112 species of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife have been documented on the project site (Updated Table 3), which are 38 more than I was aware at the time of my 25 September 2024 comment letter. The findings of BonTerra 2005) increases the number of special- status species detected on site from 14 to 26, which is an increase in the percentage of detected species that have special status from

18.9 to 23.2. The earlier findings also brings the total number of documented wildlife species closer to my predicted 173 diurnally active vertebrate wildlife species on the site, based on Noriko Smallwood’ s survey findings bridged to my findings from hundreds of surveys I completed at a research site (see my comments of 25 September 2025).

All four survey efforts detected California gnatcatcher (Updated Table 3). That California gnatcatcher is consistently detected on the project site is indicative of this species being a substantial member of the local wildlife community. The project site is obviously important to California gnatcatcher. In fact, the entirety of the project area of

76.01 acres is Critical Habitat for California gnatcatcher.

As I commented on 25 September 2024, “According to Psomas (2024), “Results of these surveys have been incorporated into this report, as appropriate based on accepted industry standards and protocols.”” However, BonTerra (2005) assessed the occurrence potentials of six special-status species that Psomas (2024) did not. Of the 41 specialstatus species that were assessed by both BonTerra (2005) and Psomas (2024), Psomas’s occurrence likelihoods differed from BonTerra’s 17 times (41%). Most significantly, Psomas (2024) concludes seven species “ May occur” but which had been observed on site by BonTerra, and concludes two species are “not expected” but which had been observed by BonTerra. Had Psomas (2024) incorporated the findings of BonTerra (2005), these none special-status species should have been identified as having been observed on the project site. Repeating from my 25 September 2024 2 comment letter, “I did not see any evidence that the results of previous surveys were incorporated into Psomas’s report.”
With the BonTerra (2005) report in hand, I updated my paragraph on the findings of my desktop review. In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 132 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Updated Table 4). Of these 132 species, 36 (27%) were recorded on the project site, and another 34 (26%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 20 (15%) within 1.5 and 4 miles Nearby’), and another 32 (24%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than twothirds (68%) of the species in Updated Table 4 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The most notable update from my 25 September 2024 comment letter is the 10 species that changed from “very close” to “on site.” I expected this time of change with additional survey, which is what happened. The site supports numerous special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in Psomas (2024).

Thank you for your consideration,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
BonTerra Consulting. 2005. Biological Resources Technical Report: Tentative Tract No. 53430, Deer Canyon Estates. Report to Stonegate Development, Laguna Hills, California.

Psomas. 2024. Biological Technical Report Hills Preserve Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. Prepared for City of Anaheim, California. 3 Updated Table 3. Species of wildlife observed by BonTerra’s reconnaissance surveys, Psomas’s reconnaissance survey, John Aguayo’s focused wildlife surveys, and Noriko Smallwood’s reconnaissance surveys.

Common name Species name Status1 BonTerra Psomas Aguayo NLS Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis longipes X X X Western side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana elegans X X X Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL X
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X
California quail Callipepla californica X X X X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X X
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X X
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus X X
Common poorwill Phalaenoptlius nuttalii X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X X
Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri X X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X X X
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC X X
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia X
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL X
Great blue heron Ardea herodias X
Great egret Ardea alba X X
Green heron Butorides virescens X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X X X X
Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP X
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X X X
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP X X X
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X X
Western screech- owl Megascops kennicotti BOP X
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X
4 Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X X
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X X X X
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X X
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP X
Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis X
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens X X X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X X X
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X
Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus X
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE X
Western flycatcher Lonchura punctulata X X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X X
Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni X
Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus X
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X X
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X X X
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
X X
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X X X
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC X X X X
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens X X
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X X X
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 X X X X Coastal cactus wren2 Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus sandiegensis
SSC1, BCC X
5 Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X X X
House wren Troglodytes aedon X X
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X X X X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana X
American robin Turdus migratorius X X
Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus X
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus X
Scaly-breasted munia Lonchura punctulata Non-native X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X X
American goldfinch Spinus tristis X
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X X
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X X X
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X X X
Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow3Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL X Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 X
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X X
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC X X
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater X X
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X X
Orange- crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X X
MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei X
Nashville warbler Leiothlypis ruficapilla X X
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 X
6 Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X
Townsend’s warbler Setophaga townsendi X
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla X X
Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana X
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus X X
Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea X
Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena X
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L X
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L X
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M X
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X X X
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native X X
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X X X Raccoon Procyon lotor X X
Bobcat Lynx rufus X
Coyote Canis latrans X X X X
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
2Reported as cactus wren, but likely coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis, SSC1, BCC) 3Reported as rufous-crowned sparrow, but likely Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens, WL)
7 Updated Table 4. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/ iNaturalist records (https:// eBird.org, https:// www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko.

Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Not
expected
Very close
Quino checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas editha quino FE Not
expected
Not
expected
In range
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE May occur Very close Coast Range newt Taricha torosa SSC May occur In region Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC May occur May occur Nearby Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC Not
expected
Not
expected
In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Not
expected
Not
expected
Nearby
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes May occur May occur Nearby Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Observed Observed On site Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes May occur Expected On site San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC May occur May occur Nearby San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC May occur In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC May occur In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
SSC May occur May occur In region
Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Not
expected
May occur Nearby
South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Not expected
Not
expected
In region
Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes May occur May occur Very close Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region 8 Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
WL Very close
Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis

FT, CE,
BCC
Not
expected
Not
expected
Very close
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC On site
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC On site
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Not
expected
In region
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC
In region
Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
9 Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Not expected
Very close
Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC On site California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
FP In region
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP On site
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Observed May occur On site Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA,

CFP, BOP,
WL
May occur May occur Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Yes Observed May occur On site
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes Observed May occur On site Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Observed Observed On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE,
BGEPA,
BOP
May occur Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Yes On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Not
expected
Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
10 Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Not
expected
Limited
potential
Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP Nearby
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Yes In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech- owl Megascops kennicotti BOP On site
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,
BOP
Not
expected
Limited
potential
Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Not
expected
Limited
potential
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site,
Just off
site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Observed May occur On site Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Not
expected
Limited
potential
Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP May occur May occur Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 On site Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE On site
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not found Not
expected
In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not found Not expected
On site
11 Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 May occur May occur Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site,
Just off
site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Not expected
Limited
potential
Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC On site,
Just off
site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Observed Observed On site Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
SSC1, BCC Observed Not
expected
On site
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC On site
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC On site
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Limited
potential
Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Observed May occur On site Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In range Southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
WL Yes Observed May occur On site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 May occur May occur On site Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
12 Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC,
SSC1
Observed Not
expected
On site
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Observed May occur On site Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur May occur In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur May occur In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M On site Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC,
WBWG:H
In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Very close
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur In region
Western small-footed
myotis
Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M May occur In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM Expected In region Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC,
WBWG:H
May occur May occur In region
Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC,
WBWG:M
May occur In range
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Not
expected
In region
13 Common name Species name Status1

NCCP/ HCP
Coverage
Occurrence potentials Data base
records,
2005 DEIR 2024 DEIR Site visits
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC May occur In region
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In range
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Yes May occur May occur Nearby Southern grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus
ramona
SSC May occur Not
expected
In range
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC May occur May occur In region Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT May occur Nearby
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list.

EXHIBIT D
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Nick Taylor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805 25 September 2024
RE: Hills Preserve Project
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Hills Preserve Project, which I understand would develop a seven-story, 498-unit, apartment complex, up to six single-family homes, and up to 80,000 square-foot commercial buildings on 76.01 acres along the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim, California. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in Psomas Psomas 2024) and in the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). I am concerned that the SMND mischaracterizes the wildlife community, inadequately analyzes potential impacts to wildlife, and provides insufficient mitigation.

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 also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time 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-seven years. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the project site for 3.3 hours from 06:48 to 10:14 on 19 September 2024, and for 1.17 hours from 18:48 to 19:58 for both evening and nocturnal surveys on 21 September 2024. During her diurnal surveys, Noriko walked the northern and southern perimeters of the site where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. During her nocturnal survey, Noriko 2 used a telescoping pole to extend a Petterson M500 bat detector 25 feet above ground and cabled to her computer. She used Sonobat to identify species based on sonograms.

During Noriko’s diurnal surveys, conditions were cloudy with mist for the first hour with no wind and temperatures of 50-63° F on 19 September 2024, and clear with no wind and 70° F on 21 September 2024. The site contained chaparral, sage scrub, oak woodland, annual grassland, riparian, and wetland (Photos 1 and 2).

Photos 1 and 2. Noriko Smallwood’s views of the project site, 19 September 2024.

Noriko saw American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and Cooper’s hawk Photos 3, 4, 5, and 6), ash-throated flycatcher (Photo 7), California thrasher and Allen’s hummingbird (Photos 8 and 9), California scrub-jay (Photo 10), lesser goldfinch and California gnatcatcher (Photos 11 and 12), song sparrow and bushtit (Photos 13 and 14), acorn woodpecker and black phoebe (Photos 15 and 16), house finch and lesser goldfinch (Photo 17), American crow and common raven (Photos 18 and 19), California towhee and spotted towhee (Photos 20 and 21), house wren and common yellowthroat Photos 22 and 23), eastern fox squirrel and Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 24 and 25), desert cottontail (Photo 26), California ground squirrel (Photo 27), and she detected 3 canyon bat, Mexican free-tailed bat and silver-haired bat (Photos 28–30). Noriko detected 46 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 13 species with special status (Table 1).

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

Photos 3–6. American kestrel just off site (top left), red-tailed hawk (top right), turkey vulture (bottom left), and Cooper’s hawk (bottom right) on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
4 Photo 7. Ash-throated flycatcher on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 8 and 9. California thrasher (left), and Allen’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 5 Photo 10. California scrub-jay on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 11 and 12. Lesser goldfinch on the project site (left), and California gnatcatcher just off of the project site (right), 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
6 Photos 13 and 14. Song sparrow (left), and bushtit (right) on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 15 and 16. Acorn woodpecker just off of the project site (left), and black phoebe on the project site (right), 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 7 Photo 17. House finch and lesser goldfinch just off of the project site, 19 September 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 18 and 19. American crow (left), and common raven (right) on the project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
8 Photos 20 and 21. California towhee (left) and spotted towhee (right) just off of the project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 22 and 23. House wren (left) and common yellowthroat (right) just off of the project site, 19 September 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 9 Photos 24 and 25. Eastern fox
squirrel just off of the project site
top), and Anna’s hummingbird on
the project site (bottom), 19
September 2024. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.
10 Photo 26. Desert
cottontail just off of the
project site, 19
September 2024. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 27. California
ground squirrel just off
of the project site, 19
September 2024. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.
11 Photos 28, 29, and 30. Sonograms of canyon bat (top), Mexican free-tailed bat middle), and Silver-haired bat (bottom) on the project site, 21 September 2024, recorded using a Petterson D500 detector and Sonobat.
12 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.3 hours of diurnal survey on 19 September 2024 and 1.17 hours of nocturnal survey on 21 September 2024.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
California quail Callipepla californica Covey just off site Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Many
Great egret Ardea alba Flew over just off site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Western screech- owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Multiple called at night Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Just off site
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Just off site
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Just off site
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Just off site, calling Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Just off site singing
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 One on northern portion of
site, one just south of site
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii
House wren Troglodytes aedon
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Sang
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Large flock
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
California towhee Melozone crissalis Foraged
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Flew over
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Flew over
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Just off site
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L Indefinite species ID Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
13 Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native Just off site California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
Coyote Canis latrans Scat and tracks
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Scat
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed as FT = federal threatened, SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).

The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case, the model fit to the early morning survey data predicts 59 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected at that time, whereas the model fit to the later morning survey data predicts 35 species were available to be detected during that later time. The model predicts that Noriko missed 24 species in the early morning, but only 4 species in the later morning which left five species undetected during her survey (Figure 1).

Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the pattern in her data indicates relatively high use of the project site compared to 34 surveys at other sites she and I have completed in the region. Compared to models fit to data Noriko and I collected from 34 other sites in the region between 2019 and 2024, the data from the Hills Preserve Project site quickly exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the rate of accumulated species detections with time into the survey (Figure 1). Importantly, however, the species Noriko did and did not detect on 19 and 21 September composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence.
14 Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on
Noriko’s visualscan surveys on
19 September
2024.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 1
1 where represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients ofdetermination, r2, of the models ranged 0. 88 to 0 50
100150 200
250
300
Minutes
into
survey
0 1020 30 40 50
Cumulative number
of wildlife species detectedSpecies count, 08:
28 hours
Model prediction r2 = 0. 98, loss =

31.7 Model prediction r2 =

0. 99, loss = 11.
2 Species
count, 06:
15 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 13.5 species over my first 3.3 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (3.3 hours to match the 3.3 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 23.7% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 41 species that Noriko detected after her 3.3 hours of morning surveys at the project site likely represented 23.7% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 41

0.237= 173 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site.

Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special- status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 111 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 46 special- status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness,
nonlinear function of
asa
hourlong survey increments
across 46 visual-scan
survey stations across
the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area,
Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, 2015 2019.

Note that thelocation of
the study islargely
irrelevant to the utility of the
graph to theinterpretation
ofsurvey outcomes at
theproject site. It is
thepattern inthe data that
isrelevant, because
thepattern istypical of
thepattern seen
elsewhere. Because my prediction of173 speciesofvertebrate wildlife, including 46 specialstatus speciesofvertebrate wildlife, isderived fromdaytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect fewnocturnal mammals such as bats, the truenumber ofspecies composing thewildlife community ofthe site must be larger, and based on Noriko’sfollowup 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50Cumulative number of surveys (
16 evening/ nocturnal survey, we already know this is true. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to inventory use of the project site by wildlife. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species- rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special- status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.

Two biologists from Psomas performed a survey on the project site on 10 November 2022 to map vegetation and to detect plant and wildlife species (Psomas 2024). Psomas performed focused surveys for special-status plant species, California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, and least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. John Aguayo surveyed on the same dates for California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren.

He did the same for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. One could question whether these were focused surveys for each of these bird species, but based on Mr. Aguayo’s overall survey findings, I think he was qualified to survey for all of these bird species in the manner he did. Compared to plant and wildlife surveys I have reviewed for hundreds of project sites, Psomas (2024) did an outstanding job.

The surveys for California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher achieved the standards of the available detection survey protocols. Less consistent with the available survey protocol were the surveys for rare plants (Table 2). Psomas (2024) fails to mee the minimum standards of qualifications 17 and reporting, which I suspect are both failures of reporting. It is unclear from Psomas 2024) that the biologists who performed the surveys were qualified to do so. I assume they were qualified, but the reporting needs to demonstrate that.

Although the survey effort by Psomas (2024) compares well against the survey efforts I have reviewed from hundreds of other project sites, there remain two important shortfalls. One shortfall is the lack of surveys in seasons other than spring and summer.

The other is the lack of any surveys for bats and other nocturnal species, and no trapping for small mammals. The scope of surveys should have been broadened.

Noriko’s surveys fill some but not all of the gaps in Psomas’s surveys, as she surveyed in September and at night. Noriko’s surveys combined with the surveys of Psomas (2024) bring the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on or adjacent to the project site to 74 (Table 3). Noriko’s surveys added 12 species of vertebrate wildlife to those detected by Psomas, and two of the species she added are special- status species.

Four of the species she added are bats. That 74 species of vertebrate wildlife including 14 special-status species of wildlife have so far been detected by professional wildlife biologists on the project site is evidence that my prediction of at least 173 diurnally active vertebrate wildlife species on the site is not only plausible but probable. And yet, guessing at the number of bats, nocturnal birds, and small mammals that would not have been detected by visual-scan surveys, the number of species detected comprises only about a third of the number of species that rely on the project site. The project site remains under-surveyed for wildlife. More surveys are warranted.

Also of note is that all three survey efforts – those of Psomas’s reconnaissance survey, Aguayo’s focused surveys, and Noriko’s September surveys – detected California gnatcatcher. That California gnatcatcher is consistently detected on the project site is indicative of this species being a substantial member of the local wildlife community.

The project site is obviously important to California gnatcatcher. In fact, the entirety of the project area of 76.01 acres is Critical Habitat for California gnatcatcher.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special- status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. 18 Table 2. Crosscheck between the minimum standards of the CDFW (2018) rare plant survey protocol and the surveys performed by Psomas (2024).

Standard in CDFW (2018) Assessment of surveys completed Was the
standard
met?
Purpose and Timing to adequately disclose potential impacts pursuant to CEQA
Qualifications
Knowledge of plant taxonomy and natural community ecology No information provided No Familiarity with plants of the region, including special status plants No information provided No Familiarity with natural communities of region, including sensitive natural communities
No information provided No
Experience with the CNDDB, BIOS, and Survey of California Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards
No information provided No
Experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in this document, or experience conducting such botanical field surveys under the direction of an experienced botanical field surveyor
No information provided No
Familiarity with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting
No information provided No
Experience analyzing the impacts of projects on native plant species and sensitive natural communities
No information provided No
Survey Preparation
Compile relevant botanical information in the general project area to provide a regional context, i.e., data base review, and to generally identify vegetation and habitat types potentially occurring in the project area based on biological and physical properties (e.g., soils) of the project area CNDDB query output Yes
Develop list of special status plants and sensitive natural communities with potential to occur within the vegetation and habitat types identified (special status plants and sensitive natural communities in a project area may not be limited to those on the list)
Yes
Survey Design
Survey extent should cover entire project area, including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project, and adjoining properties Yes
19 Use systematic field techniques, e.g., parallel transects, in all habitats of the project area to ensure thorough coverage
Systematic survey in all suitable areas;
no mention of transects
Probably
Survey at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable, usually during flowering or fruiting
Surveyed on 1 May and 5 June 2023 Yes
Space (multiple) survey visits throughout the growing season to accurately determine what plants exist in the project area
Only two surveys Partial
When special status plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat present in a project area, observe reference sites to determine whether those plants are identifiable at the times of year the surveys take place; Describe reference site(s), if visited, and phenological development of special status plant(s) at those reference sites
Three reference sites Yes
Survey Methods
Identify names and qualifications of botanical field surveyor( s) Names reported, but no qualifications Partial Dates of surveys (indicating the botanical field surveyor( s) that surveyed each area on each survey date)
Dates reported Yes
Total person-hours spent 23 person-hours Yes
Discuss survey preparation methodology Yes
List special status plants and sensitive natural communities with potential to occur in the region; identify all taxa to level necessary to determine whether they are special status
Yes
Describe and map the area surveyed relative to the project area Area survey not clearly demarked No Reporting
Describe the proposed project Yes
Discuss all adverse conditions in the botanical survey report No mention No Document all plant taxa observed Yes
Detailed data and maps for all special status plants and sensitive natural communities detected
Yes
Report specific geographic locations where the special status plants and sensitive natural communities were found, usually via GPS Yes
Site-specific characteristics of occurrences, such as associated species, habitat and microhabitat, structure of vegetation, topographic features, soil type, texture, and soil parent material. If in wetland, describe direction of flow and Yes
20 integrity of surface or subsurface hydrology and adjacent off-site hydrological influences as appropriate
The number of individuals in each special status plant population as counted if population is small) or estimated (if population is large) Yes
Percentage of each special status plant in each life stage such as seedling, vegetative, flowering, and fruiting
No
Density of special status plants No
Digital images of special status plants and sensitive natural communities in the project area, with diagnostic features
No image of black walnut Partial
Detailed map of the project area that identifies topographic and landscape features and includes a north arrow and bar scale
Yes
Vegetation map of project area using Survey of California Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards at thematic and spatial scale that allows the display of all sensitive natural communities No
Soil map of the project area Yes
Describe biological setting, including all natural communities, geological and hydrological characteristics, and land use or management history Partial
Discuss potential for a false negative botanical field survey No Discuss how climatic conditions may have affected survey results No Discuss how survey timing may affect comprehensiveness No List references used, including persons contacted and herbaria visited Yes 21 Table 3. Species of wildlife observed by Psomas’s reconnaissance survey, John Aguayo’s focused wildlife surveys, and Noriko Smallwood’s reconnaissance surveys.

Common name Species name Status1 Psomas Aguayo NLS
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis longipes X X Western side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana elegans X X Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X
California quail Callipepla californica X X X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X
Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC X X
Great egret Ardea alba X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X X X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X X
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP X X
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X
Western screech- owl Megascops kennicotti BOP X
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X X X
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X
Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis X
Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens X X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X X
Western flycatcher Lonchura punctulata X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X
22 California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X X
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis X Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X X
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC X X X
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens X
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X X
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 X X X Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X X
House wren Troglodytes aedon X
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X X X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana X
American robin Turdus migratorius X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X X
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X X
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC X
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater X
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X
Orange- crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X
Nashville warbler Leiothlypis ruficapilla X
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla X
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus X
23 Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L X
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L X
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M X
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X X
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native X X
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X X Raccoon Procyon lotor X
Coyote Canis latrans X X X
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
24 As noted above, the combined survey efforts of Psomas and Noriko Smallwood detected 74 species of vertebrate wildlife. I commented that more surveys are warranted, as more surveys would reveal more species of wildlife making use of habitat on the project site. It turns out that more surveys had already been completed in support of the previously proposed Deer Canyon Estates Project on the same site. According to Psomas (2024), Results of these surveys have been incorporated into this report, as appropriate based on accepted industry standards and protocols.” Psomas (2024) cited BonTerra Consulting (2005) and RBF Consulting (2002) as the reports of the earlier surveys, and also reported that these reports are available on CEQAnet for SCH No. 2004021044.

However, these reports are not available on CEQAnet, and I was unable to obtain them.

Also, Psomas (2024) should have explained the accepted industry standards and protocols it claimed to have used for incorporating the results of past surveys into its report. It is unclear which standards or protocols would apply. In sum and substance, I did not see any evidence that the results of previous surveys were incorporated into Psomas’s report. Had the results of those earlier surveys been incorporated, the list of wildlife species detected on site would be longer.

Psomas (2024) did not reportedly review eBird (https:// eBird.org) or iNaturalist https:// www.inaturalist.org) for documented occurrence records at or near the project site. Instead, Psomas (2024) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within four CNDDB quadrangles. By doing so, Psomas (2024) screened out many special- status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.

That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” Psomas (2024) misuses CNDDB.

The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. The lack of many CNDDB records for species recently assigned special status had nothing to do with whether the species’ geographic ranges overlapped the project site, but rather more to do with the brief time for records to have accumulated since the species were assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either. 25 In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 131 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 4). Of these 131 species, 26 (20%) were recorded on the project site, and another 43 (33%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 20 (15%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 30 (23%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than two-thirds (69%) of the species in Table 4 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports multiple special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in Psomas (2024).

Only 52 (40%) of the species in Table 4 are analyzed for occurrence potential in Psomas 2024), having omitted from its analysis 79 (60%) of the species in Table 4. Of the 52 species Psomas analyzes for occurrence potential, Psomas reports three were observed and one is expected to occur, but Psomas determines 30 may occur, six have limited potential, and 12 are not expected. Of the 30 species that reportedly may occur, four have been documented on site, 10 have been reported within 1.5 miles, and six have been reported between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site. Of the six species determined to have limited potential (whatever limited means), one has been reported within 1.5 miles and four have been reported between 1.5 and four miles from the site. Of the 12 species not expected to occur, two have been reported on site by online databases, four have been recorded within 1.5 miles, and one between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. Therefore, on the whole, Psomas’s (2024) analyses of occurrence likelihoods comport poorly with occurrence records.

Of the species omitted from Psomas’s analysis, 17 (22%) have been recorded on or just next to the project site, 28 (35%) have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, 9 (11%) have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 19 (24%) have been recorded between 4 and 30 miles of the site. The omissions hide too many cases of special-status species that have been documented on the site or that have relatively high likelihoods of occurrence due to the proximity of their occurrence records. And found on the survey site by Noriko were multiple special-status species left out of Psomas’s analysis, as well as a species Psomas determines absent from the site. Again, the site is richer in special-status species than Psomas (2024) reports. 26 Table 4. Occurrence likelihoods of special- status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/ iNaturalist records (https:// eBird.org, https:// www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles , and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko.

Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Not expected Very close
Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Not expected In range Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE May occur Very close Coast Range newt Taricha torosa SSC May occur In region Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC May occur Nearby
Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC Not expected In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Not expected Nearby Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes May occur Nearby Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Observed On site Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes Expected On site San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC May occur Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC May occur In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
SSC May occur In region
Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC May occur Nearby South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Not expected In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes May occur Very close Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE, BCC Not expected Very close
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
27 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC On site
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC In region Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Not expected Very close Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC On site California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
FP In region
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
28 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP May occur Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,

BOP, WL
May occur Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes May occur On site Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes May occur On site Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Observed On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP May occur Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Yes On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Limited potential Nearby Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP Nearby
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Yes In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech- owl Megascops kennicotti BOP On site
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Limited potential Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP Limited potential In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site, Just
off site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP May occur Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Limited potential Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP May occur Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 On site 29 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not expected In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not expected On site Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 May occur Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site, Just
off site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Limited potential Nearby Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC On site, Just
off site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Observed On site Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus sandiegensis
SSC1, BCC Not expected On site
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC On site
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC On site
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Limited potential Nearby Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL May occur Very close Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Yes May occur On site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 May occur Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
30 Common name Species name Status1
Covered
by NCCP,
HCP
DEIR
occurrence
potentials
Data base
records, Site
visits
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Not expected Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 May occur On site Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H May occur In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H May occur In region Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M On site Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Very close
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H May occur In region Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H May occur In region Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M May occur In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In region
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC May occur In region
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In range
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Yes May occur Nearby Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC Not expected In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC May occur In region
Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT May occur Nearby
31 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list. 32 POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. The accuracy of this analysis depends on an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting. In the case of the proposed project, the existing environmental setting has not been accurately characterized, and several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed.

These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, birdwindow collision mortality, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality.

HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. Habitat fragmentation multiplies the negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species Smallwood 2015). However, instead of analyzing this type of impact with any rigor, Psomas (2024) speculates the “loss of wildlife habitat would be considered limited in relation to the total amount of wildlife habitat available in the BSA region.” Psomas fails to explain what it means by limited, but the acreage of direct impacts would be 44.09 acres, and indirect impacts would extend to even greater acreages of what already composes a habitat fragment on a landscape where habitat has been severely fragmented. Even with its report of 44.09 acres of direct impacts, Psomas (2024) makes no attempt to estimate the loss of numerical or productive capacities of any of the wildlife species potentially affected. Density estimates are available to predict reductions of numerical capacity. In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of productive capacity that would result from habitat loss of 44.09 acres. One method would involve surveys to count the number of bird nests and chicks produced. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere.

Several studies have estimated total avian nest density at locations that had likewise been highly fragmented. Two study sites in grassland/ wetland/ woodland complexes within agricultural matrices had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. To acquire a total nest density closer to conditions in California, Noriko and I surveyed various patches of vegetation cover in northern and southern California throughout the breeding seasons of 2023 and 2024 (Table 5). Applying the means of these estimates to the 44.09 acres of vegetation cover that would be lost to the project would predict 191 nest sites would be destroyed. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American bird species I asked Noriko to review, then I predict the project would cost California 265 nest attempts/ year.
33 Table 5. Estimates of nest sites per acre at California sites studied by me (KSS) and Noriko (NS) multiplied against Psomas’s reported acreages that would be lost to the project.

Vegetation
cover Source
Nest
sites/ acre
Acres of
direct take
Predicted
nest sites
Riparian and
woodland
Mean of 3 riparian forest sites outside
urban areas, one studies by KSS in Rancho
Cordova, two studied by NS in San Jacinto
and Murrieta, 2023 2024 19.89 0.88 17.5
Scrub &
chapparal
Mean of two NS sites, one in Murrieta and
one in Cleveland National Forest, 2023 1.82 29.08 52.9
Grassland &
marsh
Mean of three sites, one studied by KSS
east of Davis, and two studied by NS in
Murrieta, 2024 3.84 10.32 39.6
Parks and
ornamentals
KSS hedges and edge between urban and
walnuts in Rancho Cordova, 2023 21.25 3.81 81.0
Total 44.09 191.0
The loss of 191 nest sites and 265 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed by the City. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 769 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {( nests/ year × chicks/ nest × number of years) + ( 2 adults/ nest × nests/ year) × ( number of years ÷ years/ generation)} ÷ number of years) = 845 birds per year denied to California. The loss of845 birds per
year would be asubstantial loss of birds, the vast majority of which are protected by thefederal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’sMigratory Bird Protection Act. Many of these birds would be special-status species such as Cooper’shawks and California thrashers, and some would be threatened or endangered species such as California gnatcatcher.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT One of
CEQA’sprincipal concerns
regarding potential project impacts iswhetheraproposed project would interfere with wildlife movement inthe region. Unfortunately, while Iagree with much of Psomas’s characterization ofthecorridor concept, Imust point out thatPsomas (2024) focuses too much on whether corridors exist on theproject siteorwhether the project siteexists within amovement corridor. Whether thesitefunctionsasawildlife movement corridororis located within acorridor is not the only consideration when it comes to the standard CEQA Checklist question of whether theproject would interfere with wildlife movement inthe region. The primary phrase of
34 the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.

Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have been removing avian stopover and staging opportunities from the area, and blocking movement pathways for non-volant wildlife.

As this process has progressed, the project site has become all the more important to wildlife movement in the region, as few opportunities for stopover and staging remain.

Many of the species detected by Psomas and by Noriko would not have occurred at the project site if it was not for their ability to rely on the project site for movement.

Psomas (2024:63) concludes that the project site does occur within a movement corridor, but downplays the project’s interference with wildlife movement within the corridor by claiming “The Project’s impact area is located at the terminus of the continuous open space … therefore, it would not disrupt wildlife movement along the corridor, but it would truncate the open space.” Lost in this analysis is the result that wildlife would no longer be capable of moving within the truncated space. In other words, the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

Psomas (2024:63) further concludes, “ while the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement would be adverse, they would be less than significant because the Project would not substantially change or disrupt wildlife movement along the wildlife corridor.” However, Psomas cannot have it both ways. The project impacts cannot be both adverse to wildlife movement and not substantially disrupt wildlife movement. The project would in fact eliminate a sizable portion of the existing riparian environment. Riparian environments are one of the few widely-recognized corridors in natural settings, forming a backbone of wildlife movement in the area (Andy 2020).

Moreover, Psomas’s conclusions regarding whether the site functions as a corridor or is located within a corridor, or whether the project would not substantially disrupt wildlife movement, lack supporting evidence. Psomas ( 2024) reports no survey methodology designed to determine whether and how wildlife rely on the site for movement in the region. There was no sampling regime. There was no program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them. Based on what is reported, Psomas (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in any way. The conclusions of Psomas (2024) regarding wildlife movement on the project site are speculative and conclusory, and short on logical flow.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 31 33), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality 35 on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches ( Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

Photo 31. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 32. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.
36 Photo 33. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and
crushing under tires, road mortality can be
predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al.
2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to
have the availability of more studies like that of
Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations.

My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data
resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per
mile along a county road in Contra Costa County.

Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The DEIR predicts 69,624.25 daily VMT, which projected to the year would predict 25,412,851 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of nonvolant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/ year × 1.25 years = 22, 242,187. 5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 13,925 vertebrate wildlife fatalities peryear. Based on my
analysis, the project- generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts towildlife.

The DEIR does not analyze this potential impact, nor does it propose to mitigate it.

Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads areavailable and are feasible, and they need exploration fortheir suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic- caused mortality, and thelack of any proposed mitigation, itismy opinion that the proposed project would result inpotentially significant adverse biological impacts.
37 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
The project would add 504 residential units, two restaurants and a coffee shop to open space that is currently habitat to many birds. These new residences would present glass windows to birds attempting to use an essential portion of their habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere ( Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat.

Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

The project would add a 7-story, 99.5-foot-tall multi-family building with many glass windows. The renderings of the building depict the glass as transparent – One of two qualities of glass known to increase the risk of lethal bird-window collisions (the other quality being reflectivity). The renderings depict deep interior spaces on the building’s north and south ends, and these spaces would be surrounded by glass windows. Birds entering these interior spaces are known to panic and to collide with windows. The renderings also depict glass panels bordering the pool deck, representative of another factor known to contribute to bird-window collision mortality. The renderings also depict vegetation growing on and very close to the building, which is another recognized factor that contributes to bird-window collision mortality. Despite all these previews of a bird-window collision problem, the DEIR gives it little attention in one small paragraph.

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s and Psomas’s site visits indicate there are 93 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 4). All of the birds represented in Table 4 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, and many are already on the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows. At the California Academy of Sciences, the glass facades facing adjacent gardens killed 0.077 and 0.086 birds per m2 of glass per year (Kahle et al. 2016), which might not look like large numbers at first read, but which translate to large numbers of dead birds when projected to the extent of glass on the project (see below). This study also documented many Allen’s hummingbird collisions as well, which is significant to the project because Noriko observed Allen’s hummingbird on the site.

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 by 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. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds. 38 Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 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, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

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 birdwindow 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.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated 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, Ifound 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 39 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 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 for undetected fatalities). 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
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 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, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% 40 confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

Based on the renderings of the proposed multi-family building, I measured window and extents to estimate the building would expose birds to 14,355 m2 of exterior glass. The two commercial buildings would expose birds to an estimated 2,986 m2 of exterior glass. The six single-family units would be large, so I conservatively assume the exterior glass would be double the average 27 m2 typical of homes built 20 and 30 years ago, totaling 324 m2 among all six homes. The total exterior glass in the project would be about 17,655 m2. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 17,655 m2 of window and fence glass in the project, I predict annual bird deaths of 1,291 (95% CI:
766 1,815). Relying on the mean fatality rates from the closest building studied for birdwindow collision mortality, the fatality rate at the California Academy of Sciences would predict a mean fatality rate of 1,359 to 1,518 birds per year.

The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant impacts even with the implementation of established mitigation measures. Even if the efficacy of a proposed mitigation measure was to prevent 90% of the predicted mortality, annual bird-window collision mortality would still average 129 birds based on the national mean, and 136 to 152 birds based on the study at the California Academy of Sciences building. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the building’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.

INTERFERENCE WITH HCP/ NCCP
The project site is located within the Orange County Central-Coastal Subregion of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/ Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/ HCP). If the project does not mitigate by paying the NCCP/ HCP mitigation fee, then the project’s impacts to wildlife covered by the HCP would interfere with the goals and objectives of the HCP unless the project’s impacts are appropriately mitigated. Development of the project site itself would eliminate land that remains available for mitigation from within the NCCP/ HCP, so not participating with the NCCP/ HCP would additionally interfere with it by removing California gnatcatcher habitat from its potential acquisition.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The DEIR presents a flawed analysis of potential project contributions to cumulative impacts to wildlife in the region. For example, at p. 4.3-47, it asserts “Cumulative impacts are related to site-specific impacts to biological resources and thus would be mitigated, as necessary, on a project-by-project basis. For example, as noted below, each cumulative project would be required to complete a site-specific, biological technical report and incorporate all recommendations set forth therein and otherwise ensure 41 compliance with all applicable laws and regulations governing biological resources.

Given the site-specific nature of these issues, combined with a comprehensive regulatory framework with which each cumulative development would be required to comply, this would ensure there would be a less than significant cumulative impact given the sitespecific nature of these issues.” However, this argument in the DEIR rejects the CEQA’s conceptual description of cumulative impacts by asserting that many project impacts are site-specific and generally do not influence the impacts of other projects. Furthermore, it implies that the mitigation proposed for project-level impacts would leave no residual impacts that could be considered incremental or cumulatively considerable. That is, the DEIR implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts left over by inadequate mitigation of project-level impacts, and that project-specific environmental reviews prevent these residual impacts. This notion of residual impacts being the source of cumulative impacts is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative effects.

Individually mitigated projects do not negate the significance of cumulative impacts. If they did, then CEQA would not require a cumulative effects analysis.

Ample evidence refutes the DEIR’s assertion that project-specific environmental reviews shield new projects from contributing to cumulative impacts. An aerial view of the landscape around the project site reveals very little wildlife habitat remains. If the project goes forward, the landscape would lose an additional 44 acres of wildlife habitat as well as some capacity for wildlife to move between the few isolated patches of habitat that remain. The environmental reviews of past projects did not avoid cumulative impacts, not with their analyses and not with the mitigation measures they implemented. In the face so many development projects, California’s wildlife have continued to decline. Breeding Bird Survey trends are mostly negative. eBird trends are mostly negative. Emergency listings are made for an increasing number of species, and listing petitions are being submitted.

To measure the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by development projects, and to measure cumulative impacts of development, Noriko Smallwood and I revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All of the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We reported that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (- 100%), followed by mammals (- 86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (- 49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing 42 environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations.

The DEIR’s (p. 4.3-44) conclusion is not supportable that the Project “…would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources.” No evidence would support this conclusion.

MITIGATION
MM BIO 1: Coastal sage scrub and coastal California gnatcatcher: (1) payment of the NCCP/ HCP mitigation fee, if USFWS and CDFW allow; (2) long-term preservation of existing coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers at an on-site or off-site location; and/ or (3) restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Coastal sage scrub shall be replaced at a minimum 1: 1 ratio, or as otherwise determined by the USFWS and CDFW. … If the preservation option is selected, a Long Term Protection and Management Plan LTPMP) shall be prepared by a qualified Restoration Ecologist and shall be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFW prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If the option of restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat is selected, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program (HMMP) shall be prepared by a qualified Restoration Ecologist and reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFW prior to the issuance of a grading permit. If either options #2 or #3 are selected, the Property Owner/ Developer shall be responsible for implementing either the LTPMP and/ or HMMP and ensuring that the mitigation program achieves the approved performance criteria. If either options #2 or #3 are selected, the Property Owner/ Developer shall implement the LTPMP or HMMP per its specified requirements, materials, methods, and performance criteria. If option #3 is selected, the HMMP shall include the following items: Responsibilities and Qualifications, Performance Criteria, Site Selection, Seed Materials Procurement, Wildlife Surveys and Protection, Site Preparation and Plant Materials Installation, Schedule, Maintenance Program, Monitoring Program, Long term preservation.

Because this measure’s implementation depends on whether the USFWS and CDFW allows the payment of the NCCP/ HCP mitigation fee, the DEIR should be removed from public circulation until it is known whether the USFWS and CDFW would allow payment of the fee. Whether the fee payment is allowed is central to the mitigation plan and to the question of whether the project would interfere with an existing NCCP or HCP.

Option 2 needs to be revised so that the term “long-term” is replaced by “permanent.” Long-term can be interpreted in many ways, whereas the meaning of permanent is clear.

Furthermore, more detail is needed of option 2. Most critically, the DEIR needs to identify candidate properties where option 2 can be exercised. Considering the degree of habitat fragmentation that has occurred in the region, the public and decision-makers need to know that coastal sage scrub occupied by California gnatcatcher is available for permanent protection in sufficient acreage and reasonably close to the project site. The 43 mitigation ratio should be at least 2:1, or otherwise the project will have caused a net loss of California gnatcatchers.

On-site, permanent protection should require a 3:1 mitigation ratio to prevent the growth-inducement to the south of the project, as the DEIR acknowledges is likely. A 3:1 ratio would better ensure that the habitat to the east of the project footprint, as well as habitat to the south of it, is permanently protected so that growth to the south is not allowed.

Option 3 needs to be revised to include candidate sites for habitat restoration and management. Candidate sites should be vacant of California gnatcatcher, as restoration at occupied sites could adversely affect resident gnatcatchers. However, candidates sites need to be located near enough to California gnatcatcher habitat to increase the likelihood that gnatcatchers would eventually move into restored habitat. Candidate sites should also be unlikely to cause adverse effects to other special-status species, and should be reasonably near the project site and of sufficient size to be relevant.

All three options rely on Psomas’s (2024) delineation of vegetation cover types on the project area. These cover types are depicted as hard-bounded polygons on a map of the project area. However, I saw no expression of uncertainty over the boundaries of polygons. There is no expression of graduation from one cover type to another, and therefore the map is unrealistic. Also unrealistic is the notion that California gnatcatchers occur only in coastal sage scrub, and that the complex of vegetation cover is irrelevant to California gnatcatcher conservation. The DEIR parses out vegetation cover types to separate mitigation ratios and probably to separate mitigation sites, but this approach could result in protected fragments of vegetation cover types that achieve the acreage ratio but fail to maintain their ecological connections or their capacity to support California gnatcatchers.

In addition to the above details, a revised DEIR should include performance standards .

The current DEIR says that these standards would be formulated in the LTPMP or HMMP, but these standards are too important to defer to plans drawn up outside the public’s view. The performance standards need to go not only to the protection or propagation of the targeted vegetation cover types, but also and more importantly to California gnatcatchers and other special-status species. The efficacy of the mitigation needs to be measured; otherwise the project’s impacts and whether the impacts were mitigated can never be known. To measure efficacy of mitigation, more surveys are needed on the project site prior to construction. These surveys are needed to document the abundance and distribution of California gnatcatchers and other special-status species among the vegetation cover types. Simultaneous surveys are needed to document the same at the mitigation receiving sites, followed by monitoring to measure effects to California gnatcatchers and other special- status species (Morrison 2002).

MM BIO 2: Chaparral vegetation. The same options (2) and (3) as above, but option 1 would be payment into a conservation bank.
44 See my comments under MM BIO-1, but in the case of the new option 1, I suggest revising the DEIR to identify candidate conservation banks where the option can be exercised. The public and decision-makers need to be aware that candidate conservation banks are available.

MM BIO 3: Obtain all necessary permits that are required under applicable laws and regulations for impacts to CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas.

As approved by CDFW and RWQCB, potential mitigation options shall include … the following: ( 1) payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee to an approved mitigation bank; ( 2) long-term preservation of existing riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location; or 3) restoration of riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Riparian habitat/ jurisdictional areas shall be replaced at a minimum 1: 1 ratio ...

The obtaining of all necessary permits is not a legitimate mitigation measure, as it does not necessarily avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts.

Otherwise, see my comments on MM BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2. And in the case of this measure, I will reiterate that the vegetation cover map is central to this measure but expresses no ecological connections to upland environments other than shared boundaries. This omission is important because one of the few widely-recognized corridors in natural settings is the riparian corridor (Andy 2020). The existence of riparian corridors serves as a stabilizing force on wildlife movement and persistence on larger landscapes (Andy 2020). The functionality of the existing riparian corridor is partly tied to those upland vegetation communities to which it connects.

The vegetation cover types mapped within the riparian environment get lumped into a larger riparian polygon used as the basis for MM BIO-3. This lumping simplifies the representation of the riparian environment, thereby losing the potential contributions to wildlife via complexity in plant species composition and structure. This loss of information is important because riparian environments contribute much more value to wildlife than simply as movement corridors. Wildlife concentrate in riparian environments (Ohmart 1994, Ballard et al. 2004), where mammal species diversity is higher (Hamilton et al. 2015), and where reptile and amphibian species diversity increases with habitat complexity of the riparian environment (Bateman and Merritt 2020). Bird species richness is also highest in riparian environments (Ballard et al. 2004). Lee and Rotenberry (2015) found that whereas the occurrences of some bird species in riparian forests correlated with local variables defined by percent tree cover versus percent shrub cover, the occurrences of twice as many bird species correlated with landscape variables such as adjacency and extent of upland land uses such as agriculture, shrubland or forest. However, Lee and Rotenberry (2015) identified a guild of bird species that correlate most strongly with local variables, and is composed of species that are obligates of riparian environments. This guild is composed largely of special-status species, probably because riparian environments have been reduced in the western states from 80% to 95% (Ohmart1994) and even to 98% (Jones et al. 2010).

In summary, riparian environments are important to wildlife diversity and critically important to multiple special-status species of wildlife, but the complexity of riparian environments and the juxtaposition of these environments to certain upland vegetation 45 complexes multiply the value of the riparian environment. It is therefore extremely important to appropriately characterize the riparian environment so that its potential loss can be mitigated by protecting the appropriate riparian environment elsewhere.

By parsing out the mitigation by cover type, the possibility has been introduced for protecting some riparian environment that is adjacent to residential homes or to warehouses rather than to grasslands, coastal sage scrub or chapparal. For this reason, it is all the more important that the public and decision-makers have the opportunity to see candidate mitigation sites.

MM BIO 4: Crotch’s bumble bee. The Property Owner/ Developer shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct pre-construction focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee within 500 feet of the relevant Project construction work area. … If present, … shall notify the City …and consult with CDFW to determine if a permit … will be needed under applicable laws and regulations.

The obtaining of a permit is not legitimate mitigation. Also, the available survey guidelines for Crotch’s bumble bee (CDFW 2023) need to be implemented prior to the public circulation of the DEIR, not afterwards. Detection surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee are intended to inform the CEQA review, but the DEIR falsely presents the surveys as a mitigation measure.

The DEIR needs to be revised to detail the compensatory mitigation that would be needed should Crotch’s bumble bees be found on the project site. The mere performance of detection surveys would accomplish nothing towards conserving Crotch’s bumble bee.

MM BIO 5: Burrowing owls. Per the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation CDFW 2012), the Property Owner/ Developer shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for the burrowing owl no less than 14 days prior to any ground disturbance…
There are three types of surveys recommended and described in the CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines: ( 1) Habitat assessment, ( 2) Detection surveys, and (3) Preconstruction survey. The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should be performed. The detection surveys, otherwise described as either or both breedingseason or non-breeding- season surveys, are intended to detect whether the site actually does support burrowing owls, and if so where and how many. The preconstruction survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance survey, is intended to determine whether burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and they are to be completed in chronological order.

The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey is a mitigation measure. As indicated above, preconstruction surveys re not designed to function as detection surveys. Completing a preconstruction survey without having 46 completed detection surveys cannot generate findings supportive of an absence determination. The DEIR misapplies the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines.

I recommend that the City withdraws the DEIR from public circulation so that the appropriate detection surveys can be completed and their results include in a revised DEIR. This is especially important because burrowing owls have recently declined so rapidly and across such large portions of California that a listing petition was submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission ( Miller 2024), and CDFW staff have endorsed it (CDFW 2024). With burrowing owls approaching extirpation from California, it is very important that the appropriate survey effort be made at the appropriate time, which in this case is detection surveys ahead of the public circulation of the DEIR. The public needs to know whether burrowing owls are present.

MM BIO 6: Preconstruction survey for nesting birds.

Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be understood that a preconstruction survey achieves very little. Preconstruction, takeavoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season, and these observations are to find the nest sites of single targeted species such as burrowing owl (Smallwood et al. 2013) or loggerhead shrike (Smallwood and Smallwood 2021). To identify the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort than a single survey only days prior to the start of construction. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey.

One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding season. Whereas killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities.

Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests they might salvage are only the nests of the year. Preconstruction surveys can do nothing to mitigate the loss of productive capacity that ensues construction. All subsequent years of productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a preconstruction survey. Preconstruction surveys achieve little mitigation of the impacts I predict above under Habitat Loss.
47 MM BIO 7: Pre-construction roosting bat survey.

See my comments under MM BIO-6. But I will add that the surveys for bat roosts should have already been completed, and their results reported in the DEIR. Preconstruction surveys do not carry the same detection probabilities as do detection surveys, so the former should not be relied upon without having completed the latter.

And again, any salvage of bats discovered during a preconstruction survey cannot compensate for the permanent loss of productive capacity that would result from habitat loss caused by the project.

MM BIO 8: Fencing to contain dogs and cats to the developed areas.

If the project goes forward, this measure should be implemented. However, I must point out that it would not prevent all disturbances from dogs and cats that would come with the project. Fences do not thwart the movements of free-ranging cats, nor do all dog owners adhere to fences and signage. Having surveyed many sites where dogs and cats are not permitted, I have documented many occurrences of dogs and cats.

Fencing and signage would not prevent downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii From house cats. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included.

Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” ( http:// www.evotis.org/ toxoplasma- gondii- sea-otters/).

Nor would fencing and signage prevent disturbance and displacement of wildlife by dogs Hennings 2016), and accumulation and spread of parasites. In one study of dog parks in Portugal (Ferreira et al. 2017), at least 7 different types of parasites were found in fecal and soil samples, and “the soil of all the parks was contaminated with hookworm eggs.” The parasite loading of the project site could spill-over to wildlife of the immediate area
MM BIO 9: Anticoagulant rodenticides shall not be used anywhere within the Project Site.

If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.

MM BIO 10: Avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive exotic plant species. Best Management Practices are listed.

If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts. 48 MM BIO 11: Lighting plan.

If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.

MM BIO 12: Bird-window collision mortality. …Property Owner/ Developer shall submit the Project’s plans for to the City of Anaheim for review and approval that demonstrates that window/ glass designs for the multiple-family residential building, commercial buildings, perimeter fencing, and exterior landscaping minimizes bird strikes. This may include minimization measures such as the use of bird-safe glass or through placement or the angling of windows/ glass downward so that the windows reflect the ground instead of the surrounding habitat or sky. The American Bird Conservancy has established the “2 X 4 Rule”, which describes the distance between elements making up a pattern applied to windows for the purpose of preventing bird strikes. To be effective, the pattern must uniformly cover the entire window and consist of elements of any shape (e.g., lines, dots, other geometric figures) separated by no more than 2 inches if oriented in horizontal rows, or 4 inches if oriented in vertical columns (i.e., the 2 X 4 Rule). These patterns reduce bird-window collisions when applied to the outer surface of reflective panes. Greater spacing between pattern elements increases the risk of a strike and casualties. Bird-safe glass may include a uniformly dense dot, striped, or grid pattern created as ceramic frit on the external surface of the window or a uniformly dense dot, striped, or grid patterns of clear UVreflecting and UVabsorbing film applied to the exterior of windows. It should be noted that single decals (e.g., falcon silhouettes or large eye patterns) are ineffective and shall not be used unless the entire glass surface is uniformly covered with the objects or patterns (Klem 1990).

Although I am relieved to see some consideration of the bird-window collision mortality issue, I do not believe sufficient commitment is made to minimize this impact in MM BIO-12. The renderings of the project’s buildings that are in the DEIR and available on various websites depict multiple grossly hazardous situations for birds. A great deal of exterior glass is proposed, much of it transparent and which will emit lots of interior sources of light at night. The multi-family residential building includes deep interior spaces that would trap birds, and it is covered in grasses, shrubs and trees, which is contrary to any of the available guidelines to minimize bird-window collision mortality.

I am also concerned that the measure proposes to prepare a plan to be evaluated by City staff, who are not necessarily expert on the issue. The details of the Project’s plans should be included in a publicly circulated draft of the DEIR so that those of us who are expert on the issue can provide meaningful input.

If the Project goes forward, it should adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. 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 49 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). 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.

New research results inform of the efficacy of 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. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. 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). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).

Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).

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 efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision mortality to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor newly constructed buildings or homes for fatalities.

MM BIO 13: A Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training and biological monitoring...

If the project goes forward, I concur with this measure. However, the benefits of this measure would be very small compared to the project’s impacts.

Regarding biological monitoring and should the project go forward, I recommend that qualified biologists should be required to monitor construction impacts to wildlife.

However, it should also be required that the monitor completes a report of the findings of construction monitoring. All cases of potential construction harm to wildlife should be reported to US Fish and Wildlife/California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and to the City, along with what was done to prevent or minimize or rectify injuries. All injuries 50 and fatalities should be reported to the same parties, along with the disposition of any remains. The report be made available to the public.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES
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. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles and windows and by depredation attempts by house cats and dogs.

Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape- scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/ eap.2089 Andy, K. E. 2023. How can we manage toward more resilient landscapes? Assessing how riparian areas could help wildlife move through anthropogenic matrices. Masters thesis, Simon Fraser University.
51 Ballard, G., R. Burnett, D. Burton, A. Chrisney, L. Comrack, G. Elliott, T. Gardali, G.

Geupel, S. Heath, D. Humple, B. Kus, M. Lynes, M. Pitkin, L. Pomara, S. Scoggin, S.

Small, D. Stralberg, and V. Toniolo. 2004. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. A strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. Version

2.0. California Partners in Flight and the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture.

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
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI

10.1590/ 0001-3765202020180745.

Bateman, H. L. and D. M. Merritt. 2020. Complex riparian habitats predict reptile and amphibian diversity. Global ecology and conservation 22:e00957.

Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http:// dx.doi.org/ 10.5751/ ACE-00604-080202.

BonTerra. 2005 (January 20). Tentative Tract No. 16440 Deer Canyon Estates, Biological Technical Report. Costa Mesa, CA: BonTerra Consulting.

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 birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http:// doi.org/ 10.7717/ peerj.9401 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.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
52 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https:// nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

CDFW. 2024. Petition evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea). Report to the Fish and Game Commission, August 2024. Sacramento, California.

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 Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773– 780.

De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.

C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.

Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/ peerj.13142.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https:// digitalcommons. unl.edu/ usgsstaffpub/ 1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Ferreira, A., A. M. Alho, D. Otero, L. Gomes, R. Nijsse, P. A. M. Overgaauw, and L.

Madeira de Carvalho. 2017. Urban dog parks as sources of canine parasites:
contamination rates and pet owner Behaviours in Lisbon, Portugal. Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health Volume 2017, Article ID 5984086, 7 pages. https:// doi.org/ 10.1155/ 2017/ 5984086
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. 53 Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/ j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https:// doi.org/ 10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
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, 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 Hamilton, B. T., B. L. Roeder, K. A. Hatch, D. L. Eggett, and D. Tingey. 2015. Why is small mammal diversity higher in riparian areas than in uplands?. Journal of Arid Environments 119:41-50.

Hennings, L. 2016. Impacts of dogs on wildlife and water quality. Metro Parks Nature Technical Report DOI: 10.13140/ RG.2.1.1107.5445.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Jones, K. B., E. T. Slonecker, M. S. Nash, A. C. Neale, T. G. Wade, and S. Hamann. 2010.

Riparian habitat changes across the continental United States (1972– 2003) and potential implications for sustaining ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 25:1261- 1275.

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.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.
54 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.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1- 11. doi:10.1093/ icb/ icn037 Lee, M. B. and J. T. Rotenberry. 2015. Effects of land use on riparian birds in a semiarid region. Journal of Arid Environments 119:61-69.

Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

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 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https:// doi.org/ 10.1371/ journal. pone.0224164
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 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

Morrison. M. L. 2002. Wildlife restoration. Island Press, Covelo, California. 55 Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

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.

Ohmart, R. D. 1994. The effects of human-induced changes on the avifauna of western riparian habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 15:273-285.

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.

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.

Psomas. 2024. Biological Technical Report Hills Preserve Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. Prepared for City of Anaheim, California.

RBF Consulting. 2002 (August 14). Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters, 32-Acre Stonegate Property, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California. Irvine, CA:

RBF Consulting.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1– 14.

Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.

Field testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird window collisions.

Urban Ecosystems ( 2023) 26:713– 723. https:// doi.org/ 10.1007/ s11252- 022-01304- w
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/ biolog2015-0057 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
56 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0025383 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. 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.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https:// doi.org/ 10.1002/ jwmg.22216 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https:// doi.org/ 10.3390/ d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https:// doi.org/ 10.3390/ d15101037.

Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

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.

Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http:// doi.org/ 10.7717/ peerj.14676 57 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

Photo 34. House finch next to the project site. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

EXHIBIT E
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Nick Taylor
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, California 92805 17 October 2024
RE: Hills Preserve Project
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I write to reply to the City of Anaheim’s FEIR responses to comments that had been submitted to the City regarding its analysis of potential project impacts to wildlife that is presented in the DEIR prepared for the proposed Hills Preserve Project. My replies follow in the order of the City’s responses, although I do break some of the responses up by issue. Where I break responses by issue, I added a letter to the numbered response.

Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.1a: “ The commentor further states that the City, as a signatory local government under the NCCP/ HCP, has the ability to extend authorization for Incidental Take of Coastal Sage Scrub Species ( e.g., gnatcatcher) to Non-Participating Landowners, such as the Property Owner/ Developer, on land that is located outside the Reserve System, Special Linkage Areas, and Existing Use Areas through the application of the Mitigation Fee option.

Reply: Omitted from the response’s summary of the comment was the phrase “the City is responsible for reviewing project proposals within its jurisdiction for consistency with the NCCP/ HCP, and its ability to extend authorization for Incidental Take of Coastal Sage Scrub Species ( e.g., gnatcatcher) to Non-Participating Landowners …” There is a consistency analysis in the DEIR, but it is only cursory and fails to point out the agreement for early consultation with the CDFW and USFWS regarding potential impacts to covered species, and appropriate mitigation. And according to the USFWS letter, there has been no coordination between the Property Owner/ Developer and the USFWS regarding the Project or its mitigation of impacts to California gnatcatcher or any other listed species.

Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.1b: The comment is noted. As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the entire Project Site is located within a NCCP Reserve “Existing Use Area”. As such, the City does not believe that the mitigation fee option would be applicable to the Project, unless permitted by USFWS and CDFW. Given that the comment does not raise significant environmental issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.” Reply: The City only assumes the USFWS and CDFW would not permit the mitigation fee option due to the Project’s location. According to the USFWS letter, there has been no coordination between the Property Owner/ Developer and the USFWS regarding the 2 Project or its mitigation of impacts to California gnatcatcher or any other listed species.

As written, the DEIR misrepresents the disposition of its mitigation measures.

Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.2a: “The commentor states that based on existing conditions described within the Project Site, it is the USFWS staff’s opinion that the Project would compromise and existing habitat linkage for coastal California gnatcatcher. The commentor states that the NCCP/ HCP does not identify any restrictions on existing landowners uses on Existing Use Area properties; however, the NCCP/ HCP also does not authorize any Incidental Take within Existing Use Areas.

Therefore, the commentor states that the Property Owner/ Developer must seek approval from USFWS as required by the FESA.

Reply: Again, a portion of the comment is omitted from the City’s summary of it.

Missing is the following: “if a change in land use is proposed for such an area that will result in incidental take of a listed species such as the gnatcatcher, the Property Owner/ Developer must seek approval from the Service…” It is the change in land use that would result in incidental take that prompts the need for authorization for incidental take. Developing a large residential project that would interfere with an existing habitat linkage would qualify as such a land use change requiring early consultation with the USFWS, early meaning consultation prior to the public circulation of the DEIR.

Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.2b: “The comment is noted. As shown in Table 3-4, Discretionary Approvals, within Section 3, Project Description, of the Project’s Draft EIR, the City assumes that the Project would require the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the USFWS. Also, it is likely that CDFW will require the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Consistency Determination pursuant to the CESA for the Project. Given that the comment does not raise significant environmental issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.

Reply: But the comment does raise a significant environmental issue, which the City is ignoring. The issue is the process. The DEIR is misrepresenting mitigation measures to the public and decision-makers. The Property Owner/ Developer should have consulted with the USFWS regarding the Project’s potential impacts and allowable mitigation of those impacts to California gnatcatcher or any other listed species prior to public circulation of the DEIR.

Response to US Fish and Wildlife Service A-5.2c: “The commentor states that they recommend the Property Owner/ Developer conduct early coordination with USFWS so the Property Owner/ Developer and the USFWS can work together on additional mitigation measures and avoidance opportunities that may exist. The commentor states that they recommend postponing completion of the EIR until coordination has occurred between the Property Owner/ Developer and USFWS on this Project.
3 The comment is noted. USFWS staff were notified of the Project via a Notice of Preparation (NOP) during the scoping period for the Project and via a Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing the public review period for the Draft EIR for this Project. However, to date, only general comments have been provided by USFWS staff to the City of Anaheim related to the Project, none of which propose any changes to any of the analyses or mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR nor any direct critiques of the analyses. Section 4.3, Biological Resources, contains the City’s rationale for the biological resources-related analyses as well as mitigation measures that have been included in the Draft EIR. Given that the comment does not raise any specific critiques of the environmental analyses contained in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. However, it should be noted that the City assumes the possibility that USFWS and CDFW may impose additional conditions on the Project as part of the FESA and CESA processes.”
Reply: It is the responsibility of the Property Owner/ Developer to seek consultation with the USFWS. After all, it is the Property Owner/ Developer who seeks to change the land use in such a way that would result in takings of California gnatcatchers and other special-status species. The City had an agreement with the CDFW and USFWS in the form of an NCCP/ HCP, and now appears to be reneging on its agreement. According to the USFWS, it has no record of having received a Notice of Availability of the DEIR, which might be further evidence that the City is avoiding consultation until after EIR certification. If this is the case, then in my opinion it is misleading to the public and the City’s decision-makers, and it jeopardizes the continued existence of California gnatcatchers in the Project Area.

Minor Revisions and Clarifications MM BIO-1: “ The Property Owner/ Developer shall mitigate for impacts to coastal sage scrub and coastal California gnatcatcher prior to the issuance of a grading permit ... The City prefers on-site preservation and/ or restoration if feasible.”
Reply: The City’s stated preference does not resolve the issue of the flawed process. The City is not honoring its agreement the CDFW and USFWS in the form of the NCCP/ HCP. The DEIR was circulated prior to any consultation between the Property Owner/ Developer and the USFWS regarding California gnatcatcher impacts and mitigation. Without having consulted the USFWS, the FEIR presents the public a misleading disposition of mitigation measures.

Minor Revisions and Clarifications MM BIO-2: “The Property Owner/ Developer shall mitigate for impacts to chaparral vegetation (i.e., toyon-sumac chaparral and toyon-sumac chaparral/ ruderal) prior to issuance of a grading permit through one or a combination of the following options … : (1) payment of the adopted applicable in-lieu mitigation fee to an approved mitigation bank; (2) long-term preservation of existing chaparral habitat at an on-site or off-site location; and/ or (3) restoration of chaparral habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Toyon-sumac chaparral shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio and toyon-sumac chaparral/ ruderal shall be replaced at a minimum

0.5:1 ratio. ... The City prefers on-site preservation and/or restoration if feasible.”
4 Reply: The City’s stated preference does not resolve the issue of the flawed process. The City is not honoring its agreement the CDFW and USFWS in the form of the NCCP/ HCP. The DEIR was circulated prior to any consultation between the Property Owner/ Developer and the USFWS regarding California gnatcatcher impacts and mitigation. Without having consulted the USFWS, the FEIR presents the public a misleading disposition of mitigation measures.

Minor Revisions and Clarifications MM BIO-3: “Prior to initiation of relevant Project construction activities, the Property Owner/ Developer shall obtain all necessary permits that are required under applicable laws and regulations for impacts to CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional areas. Potential mitigation options shall include one or both of the following, as approved by CDFW and RWQCB: ( 1) payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee to an approved mitigation bank; (2) long-term preservation of existing riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location; or (3) restoration of riparian habitat at an on-site or off-site location. Riparian habitat/ jurisdictional areas shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise determined by the resource agencies. The City prefers on-site preservation and/ or restoration if feasible.” Reply: The City’s stated preference does not resolve the issue of the flawed process. The City is not honoring its agreement the CDFW and USFWS in the form of the NCCP/ HCP. The DEIR was circulated prior to any consultation between the Property Owner/ Developer and the USFWS regarding California gnatcatcher impacts and mitigation. Without having consulted the USFWS, the FEIR presents the public a misleading disposition of mitigation measures.

Thank you for your consideration,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

EXHIBIT F
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape. com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape. com
October 7, 2024
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the SALT Development Hills Preserve Project (SCH No. 2023080600) Dear Ms. Staley,
We have reviewed the July 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“ DEIR”) for the SALT Development Hills Preserve Project (“ Project”) located in the City of Anaheim (“ City”). The Project proposes to construct 504 residential dwelling units, 80,000-square feet (“SF”) of commercial space, and 1,019 parking spaces on the 76-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the health risk and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report (“ EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR conducts a health risk analysis (“ HRA”) evaluating impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (“ DPM”) emissions from Project construction. The DEIR estimates that the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 1 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million (p. 4.2-41). The DEIR, however, fails to mention the DPM impacts or evaluate the health risks associated with Project operation. The DEIR’ s evaluation of the Project’ s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is unsupported.
2 By failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)’ s requirement to make “ a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’ s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” 1The Project is also inconsistent with the State of California Department of Justice, which recommends that projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“ OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. 2 While the DEIR includes a HRA evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance, “ the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.” 3 The DEIR’ s HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’ s total construction and operation. This is unsupported and an updated analysis should quantify the sum of the Project’ s construction and operational health risks to compare to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the DEIR ( p. 4.2-41).

The DEIR is consequently required under CEQA to elaborate upon all proposed, feasible mitigation. Until the DEIR and associated documents conduct an operational HRA, the Project’ s less-than-significant health risk determination should not be relied upon. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact We prepared a screening- level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model. 4 AERSCREEN uses 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 estimated using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual particulate matter 10 (“ PM10”) exhaust estimates from the DEIR’ s CalEEMod Hills Preserve Operations ( 2027) v4” model’ s output files. For the purposes of this screening level analysis, only the first phase of operations was used, however, it is recommended that Project applicants analyze all three phases in a revised operational health risk assessment.

Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. Subtracting the 977-day construction period from the total residential 1 “ Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https:// ceqaportal. org/ decisions/ 1907/ Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno. pdf. 2 “ Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https:// oag.ca.gov/ sites/ all/files/ agweb/ pdfs/ environment/ warehouse- best-practices. pdf, p. 6. 3 “ Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https:// oehha.ca.gov/ media/ downloads/ crnr/ 2015guidancemanual. pdf p. 8-4 4 “ AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
https:// www.epa.gov/ sites/ default/ files/ 2020-10/ documents/ 20110411_ aerscreen_ release_ memo. pdf. 3 duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’ s operational DPM for an additional 27.32 years. The DEIR’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 100 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

Emission Rate gramssecond= 100 lbs 365 days × 453. 6gramslbs × 1day24 hours × 1hour3, 600 seconds = Using this equation, weestimated construction emission rate of0.00144 grams per second (“ g/ s”). Operation was simulated as a 76-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 784- by 392-meters. Arelease height ofthree meters was selected torepresent the height of stacksofoperational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and ahalf meters was used tosimulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of the Cityof Anaheim was obtained from U. S. 2022 Census data. 5The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U. S. EPA”) guidance suggests that inscreening procedures, theannualized average concentration of an air pollutant to beestimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.6The DEIR indicates that “the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are located to the west, east, and south of the Project Site, with the nearest sensitive receptors located as close as 30 feet to the west” ( p. 4.2-9). However, according to the AERSCREEN output files, the MEIR islocated approximately 400 meters downwind of the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN forProject operations approximately 0.2770 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 400 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we getanannualized average concentration of0.0277 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.
7We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, asrecommended by SCAQMD.8 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the CARB recommends the use ofastandard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate ( i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ ASF”) inorder toaccount for the increased sensitivity to 5 “Anaheim” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https:// datacommons. org/place/ geoId/ 0602000. 6 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U. S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www. epa. gov/ sites/ default/ files/2020- 09/documents/ epa-454r- 92-019_ocr. pdf. 7See Attachment Bfor AERSCREEN output
files. 8 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http:// http://www.aqmd. gov/docs/ default- source/ planning/ risk-assessment/ ab-2588-supplemental- guidelines. pdf?sfvrsn= 19, p. 19; 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. 4 carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/ BW”), exposure duration (“ ED”), ASFs, fraction of time at home (“ FAH”), and exposure frequency (“ EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening- level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
L/ kg-day) 9
Age
Sensitivity
Factor 10
Exposure
Duration
years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home11
Exposure
Frequency
days/ year) 12
Exposure
Time
hours/ day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“ CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day mg/ kg/ day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. To assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

DoseAIR,per age group = Cair × EF × BRBW × A × CF where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (
mg/ kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (g/m3) EF= exposure frequency ( number
of days/365 days) BR/BW = daily breathing
rate normalized tobody weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor ( default = 1) 9 “Supplemental Guidelines for
Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www. aqmd.gov/ docs/ default- source/ planning/ risk-assessment/ ab-2588-supplementalguidelines. pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; 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. 10 “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. 8-5Table 8. 3. 11 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www. aqmd.gov/ docs/ default- source/ rule- book/ ProposedRules/ 1401/ riskassessmentprocedures_ 2017_080717. pdf, p. 7. 12 “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. 5-24. 5 CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, gto mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

Cancer RiskAIR = DoseAIR × CPF × ASF × FAH × EDAT where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (
mg/ kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical- specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group FAH = fraction oftime
at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years) AT = averaging time period
over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70years) Consistent with the 977- day construction schedule, the annual annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder ofthe 30-year exposure period, which makes upthe latter 13.57 years ofthe child stage of life, as well as the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The results of our calculations are shown in thetable below. The Maximally Exposed Individual
atan Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration ug/ m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.
25 * * Infant ( 0 - 2) Construction
2 * * Construction 0. 43 * * Operation

13. 57 0.
0277 9.72E- 06 Child ( 2 - 16) Total
14 0. 0277 9. 72E- 06 Adult ( 16 - 30) Operation
14 0. 0277 1. 11E- 06 Lifetime 30 1.08E05 See DEIR for constructionrelated cancer risk. As demonstrated inthe table above, the excess cancer risks for children and adults at the MEIR located approximately 400 meters away, over

1. the course of the Project’sfirst phase of operation, are approximately 9.72 and 11 in one million, respectively. The total excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately

10.8in one million. When summing the Project’ sconstruction- related cancer risk, as estimated by the DEIR, with SWAPE’ s operational cancer risk, we estimate an 6 excess cancer risk of approximately 11.8 in one million over the course of a 30-year residential lifetime p. 4.2-41).13 As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified in the DEIR.

The purpose of the screening- level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:

EPA’ s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ ( U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment ( i.e., a screening- level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” Screening- level analyses warrant further evaluation of all three phases of operation in a refined modeling approach. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, and therefore a revised EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):

When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The DEIR is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

In order to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project operation, we recommend the DEIR consider several mitigation measures ( see list below). 13 Calculated: 1.0 in one million (DEIR’ s estimated construction- related cancer risk) + 10.8 in one million (SWAPE’ s estimated operational cancer risk) = 11.8 in one million. 7 The Southern California Association of Governments (“ SCAG”)’ s 2020 RTP/ SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“ PMM-AQ-1”) recommends the following: 14
Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities.

Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment ( 50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.

Ensure all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.

Minimizing idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements — saves fuel and reduces emissions.

Utilize existing power sources ( e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.

Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.” 15
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Projectrelated DPM emissions. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate loweremitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

A revised EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated health risk and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’ s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. 14 “ 4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum # 1, September 2020, available at: https:// scag. ca.gov/ sites/ main/ files/ fileattachments/ fpeir_connectsocal_ addendum_ 4_mitigationmeasures. pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “ Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https:// scag. ca.gov/ peir.
15 “ Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http:// www.aqmd.gov/ docs/ defaultsource/ caleemod/ user-guide-2021/ appendix- a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. 8 Disclaimer
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.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld
Annual Emissions ( tons/ year) Total DPM (lbs) 0 Annual Emissions ( tons/ year) 0.05 Daily Emissions ( lbs/ day) 0 Total DPM (g) 0 Daily Emissions ( lbs/ day) 0.273972603 Construction Duration ( days) 214 Emission Rate (g/ s) 0 Total DPM (lbs) 100 Total DPM (lbs) 0 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/ s) 0.001438356 Total DPM (g) 0 Total Acreage 76 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 6/ 1/2027 Max Horizontal ( meters) 784.30 Total Acreage 76 End Date 1/ 1/2028 Min Horizontal ( meters) 392.15 Max Horizontal ( meters) 784.30 Construction Days 214 Initial Vertical Dimension ( meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal ( meters) 392.15 Setting Anaheim Initial Vertical Dimension ( meters) 1.5 Annual Emissions ( tons/ year) Population 344,461 Setting Anaheim Daily Emissions ( lbs/ day) 0 Start Date 6/1/2027 Population 344,461 Construction Duration ( days) 366 End Date 2/ 2/ 2030
Total DPM (lbs) 0 Total Construction Days 977
Total DPM (g) 0 Total Years of Construction 2.68
Start Date 1/ 1/2028 Total Years of Operation 27.32
End Date 1/ 1/2029
Construction Days 366
Annual Emissions ( tons/ year)
Daily Emissions ( lbs/ day) 0
Construction Duration (days) 397
Total DPM (lbs) 0
Total DPM (g) 0
Start Date 1/ 1/2029
End Date 2/ 2/2030
Construction Days 397
2026
2025
Construction Operation
2024 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
Age Group Emissions Source Duration ( years) Concentration ug/ m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 **
Infant (0 - 2) Construction 2 **
Construction 0.43 **
Operation 13.57 0.0277 9.72E- 06
Child (2 - 16) Total 14 0.0277 9.72E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0277 1.11E-06
Lifetime 30 1.08E- 05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor AERSCREEN 21112 AERMOD 21112 09/ 27/ 24
13: 00: 48
TITLE: SALTDevelopmentHillsPreserve, Operational

AREA PARAMETERS
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0. 144E 02 g/ s 0. 114E 01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0. 468E 08 g/( s m2) 0. 371E 07 lb/( hr m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3. 00 meters 9. 84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 784. 30 meters 2573. 16 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 392. 15 meters 1286. 58 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1. 50 meters 4. 92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 344461
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE 5000. meters 16404. feet

BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON POINT SOURCES

FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS
25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters 5000. meters

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1 HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS ug/ m3) deg) m) PERIOD
1* 1. 000 0. 2770 15 400. 0 WIN
worst case diagonal
Attachment B

MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS
MIN/ MAX TEMPERATURE: 250. 0 310. 0 K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0. 5 m/ s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10. 000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0. 35
BOWEN RATIO: 1. 50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1. 000 meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT

YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/ DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS

1. 30 0. 043 9. 000 0. 020 999. 21. 6. 0 1. 000 1. 50 0. 35 0. 50

HT REF TA HT

10. 0 310. 0 2. 0

AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1 HR CONC DIST 1 HR CONC
m) ug/ m3) m) ug/ m3)

1. 00 0. 2152 2525. 00 0. 2519E 01

25. 00 0. 2203 2550. 00 0. 2488E 01

50. 00 0. 2254 2575. 00 0. 2457E 01

75. 00 0. 2303 2600. 00 0. 2427E 01
100. 00 0. 2350 2625. 00 0. 2397E 01
125. 00 0. 2395 2650. 00 0. 2368E 01
150. 00 0. 2438 2675. 00 0. 2340E 01
175. 00 0. 2479 2700. 00 0. 2312E 01
200. 00 0. 2519 2725. 00 0. 2284E 01
225. 00 0. 2557 2750. 00 0. 2257E 01
250. 00 0. 2594 2775. 00 0. 2231E 01
275. 00 0. 2629 2800. 00 0. 2205E 01
300. 00 0. 2664 2825. 00 0. 2179E 01
325. 00 0. 2696 2850. 00 0. 2154E 01
350. 00 0. 2728 2875. 00 0. 2130E 01
375. 00 0. 2759 2900. 00 0. 2106E 01
400. 00 0. 2770 2925. 00 0. 2083E 01
425. 00 0. 2755 2950. 00 0. 2060E 01
450. 00 0. 2387 2975. 00 0. 2037E 01
475. 00 0. 1989 3000. 00 0. 2015E 01
500. 00 0. 1774 3025. 00 0. 1993E 01
525. 00 0. 1639 3050. 00 0. 1972E 01
550. 00 0. 1533 3075. 00 0. 1951E 01
575. 00 0. 1443 3100. 00 0. 1931E 01
600. 00 0. 1372 3125. 00 0. 1911E 01
625. 00 0. 1302 3150. 00 0. 1891E 01
650. 00 0. 1241 3175. 00 0. 1872E 01
675. 00 0. 1193 3200. 00 0. 1853E 01
700. 00 0. 1149 3225. 00 0. 1834E 01
725. 00 0. 1108 3250. 00 0. 1816E 01
750. 00 0. 1069 3275. 00 0. 1797E 01
775. 00 0. 1033 3300. 00 0. 1779E 01
800. 00 0. 9984E 01 3325. 00 0. 1762E 01
825. 00 0. 9658E 01 3350. 00 0. 1745E 01
850. 00 0. 9354E 01 3375. 00 0. 1728E 01
875. 00 0. 9063E 01 3400. 00 0. 1711E 01
900. 00 0. 8788E 01 3425. 00 0. 1695E 01
925. 00 0. 8524E 01 3450. 00 0. 1678E 01
950. 00 0. 8275E 01 3475. 00 0. 1663E 01
975. 00 0. 8039E 01 3500. 00 0. 1647E 01
1000. 00 0. 7813E 01 3525. 00 0. 1632E 01
1025. 00 0. 7600E 01 3550. 00 0. 1617E 01
1050. 00 0. 7394E 01 3575. 00 0. 1602E 01
1075. 00 0. 7196E 01 3600. 00 0. 1587E 01
1100. 00 0. 7008E 01 3625. 00 0. 1573E 01
1125. 00 0. 6829E 01 3650. 00 0. 1559E 01
1150. 00 0. 6656E 01 3675. 00 0. 1545E 01
1175. 00 0. 6492E 01 3700. 00 0. 1531E 01
1200. 00 0. 6335E 01 3725. 00 0. 1517E 01
1225. 00 0. 6185E 01 3750. 00 0. 1504E 01
1250. 00 0. 6037E 01 3775. 00 0. 1491E 01
1275. 00 0. 5896E 01 3800. 00 0. 1478E 01
1300. 00 0. 5762E 01 3825. 00 0. 1465E 01
1325. 00 0. 5633E 01 3850. 00 0. 1453E 01
1350. 00 0. 5509E 01 3875. 00 0. 1440E 01
1375. 00 0. 5388E 01 3900. 00 0. 1428E 01
1400. 00 0. 5272E 01 3925. 00 0. 1416E 01
1425. 00 0. 5161E 01 3950. 00 0. 1404E 01
1450. 00 0. 5055E 01 3975. 00 0. 1393E 01
1475. 00 0. 4952E 01 4000. 00 0. 1381E 01
1500. 00 0. 4851E 01 4025. 00 0. 1370E 01
1525. 00 0. 4753E 01 4050. 00 0. 1359E 01
1550. 00 0. 4658E 01 4075. 00 0. 1348E 01
1575. 00 0. 4567E 01 4100. 00 0. 1337E 01
1600. 00 0. 4480E 01 4125. 00 0. 1326E 01
1625. 00 0. 4396E 01 4150. 00 0. 1316E 01
1650. 00 0. 4315E 01 4175. 00 0. 1305E 01
1675. 00 0. 4236E 01 4200. 00 0. 1295E 01
1700. 00 0. 4158E 01 4225. 00 0. 1285E 01
1725. 00 0. 4084E 01 4250. 00 0. 1275E 01
1750. 00 0. 4011E 01 4275. 00 0. 1265E 01
1775. 00 0. 3941E 01 4300. 00 0. 1255E 01
1800. 00 0. 3872E 01 4325. 00 0. 1245E 01
1825. 00 0. 3806E 01 4350. 00 0. 1236E 01
1850. 00 0. 3742E 01 4375. 00 0. 1226E 01
1875. 00 0. 3680E 01 4400. 00 0. 1217E 01
1900. 00 0. 3620E 01 4425. 00 0. 1208E 01
1925. 00 0. 3560E 01 4450. 00 0. 1199E 01
1950. 00 0. 3502E 01 4475. 00 0. 1190E 01
1975. 00 0. 3446E 01 4500. 00 0. 1181E 01
2000. 00 0. 3392E 01 4525. 00 0. 1173E 01
2025. 00 0. 3339E 01 4550. 00 0. 1164E 01
2050. 00 0. 3287E 01 4575. 00 0. 1156E 01
2075. 00 0. 3238E 01 4600. 00 0. 1147E 01
2100. 00 0. 3189E 01 4625. 00 0. 1139E 01
2125. 00 0. 3142E 01 4650. 00 0. 1131E 01
2150. 00 0. 3096E 01 4675. 00 0. 1123E 01
2175. 00 0. 3052E 01 4700. 00 0. 1115E 01
2200. 00 0. 3008E 01 4725. 00 0. 1107E 01
2225. 00 0. 2964E 01 4750. 00 0. 1099E 01
2250. 00 0. 2922E 01 4775. 00 0. 1092E 01
2275. 00 0. 2881E 01 4800. 00 0. 1084E 01
2300. 00 0. 2840E 01 4825. 00 0. 1077E 01
2325. 00 0. 2801E 01 4850. 00 0. 1069E 01
2350. 00 0. 2763E 01 4875. 00 0. 1062E 01
2375. 00 0. 2725E 01 4900. 00 0. 1055E 01
2400. 00 0. 2689E 01 4925. 00 0. 1048E 01
2425. 00 0. 2653E 01 4950. 00 0. 1041E 01
2450. 00 0. 2619E 01 4975. 00 0. 1034E 01
2475. 00 0. 2585E 01 5000. 00 0. 1027E 01
2500. 00 0. 2552E 01

AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY
3 hour, 8 hour, and 24 hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1 hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED Section 4. 5. 4)
Report number EPA 454/ R 92 019
http:// www. epa. gov/ scram001/ guidance_ permit. htm
under Screening Guidance

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1 HOUR 3 HOUR 8 HOUR 24 HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE ug/ m3) ug/ m3) ug/ m3) ug/ m3) ug/ m3)
FLAT TERRAIN 0. 2778 0. 2778 0. 2778 0. 2778 N/ A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 406. 00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0. 2152 0. 2152 0. 2152 0. 2152 N/ A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1. 00 meters
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape. com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
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 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. 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) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:

Founding Partner, Soil/ Water/ Air Protection Enterprise ( SWAPE) ( 2003 – present); Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 2003); Attachment C
2 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 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, 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 more than 100 industrial facilities.

Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.

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.

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.
3 Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production related contamination in Mississippi.

Lead author for a multi volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.

Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and 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 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.

Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:

Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.

Reviewed and wrote part B permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.

Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’ s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:

Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.

Conducted watershed scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.

Identified high levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.

Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.

Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.

Co authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.

Contributed to the Federal Multi Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:

Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.

Shaped EPA’ s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.

Improved the technical training of EPAs scientific and engineering staff.Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing theregion’s 300 scientists and engineers innegotiations withthe Administrator andsenior management tobetter integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy making process.

Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:

Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.

Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.

Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites ( later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:

Supervised year long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.

Conducted aquifer tests.

Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:

At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography ( lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.

Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.

Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

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).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.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.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.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 Char ac terization and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 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 examinations, 2009 2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (
Office: ( 310) 452-5555
Fax: ( 310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape. com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
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 volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances ( PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment D
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
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 Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
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. (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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
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.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., " The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals ( PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
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.

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 E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
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.

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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
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.

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.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
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
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22- 2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16- cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30- 2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22- 2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
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 Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 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 No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
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 No. 2:09- cv- 232- WHA- TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
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 United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
1640 Fifth Street, Suite 204
Santa Monica, California 90401
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (
Office: ( 310) 434- 0110
Fax: ( 310) 434- 0011
Email: prosenfeld@swape. com
October 2013 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. 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, MtBE and fuel oxygenates, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, and odor. Significant projects performed by Dr. Rosenfeld include the following:

Litigation Support
Client: Missouri Department of Natural Resources (Jefferson City, Missouri) Serving as an expert in evaluating air pollution and odor emissions from a Republic Landfill in St. Louis, Missouri.

Conducted. Project manager overseeing daily, weekly and comprehensive sampling of odor and chemicals.

Client: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) Serving as an expert witness, conducting groundwater modeling of an ethylene dichloride DNAPL and soluble plume resulting from spill caused by Conoco Phillips.

Client: Missouri Department of Natural Resources (St. Louis, Missouri) Serving as a consulting expert and potential testifying expert regarding a landfill fire directly adjacent to another landfill containing radioactive waste. Implemented an air monitoring program testing for over 100 different compounds using approximately 12 different analytical methods.

Client: Baron & Budd, P.C. (Dallas, Texas) and Weitz & Luxeinberg (New York, New York) Served as a consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi District Litigation ( MDL) in New York. Consolidated ground water data, created maps for test cases, constructed damage model, evaluated taste and odor threshold levels.

Resulted in a settlement of over $440 million.

Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Served as a as an expert in ongoing litigation involving over 50,000+ plaintiffs who are seeking compensation for chemical exposure and reduction in property value resulting from chemicals released from the BP facility.

April 2013 2 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage, medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of over 13,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and dioxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and Cerro Copper’ s operations in Sauget, Illinois. Developed AERMOD models to demonstrate plaintiff’ s exposure.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas Texas) and Korein Tillery (St. Louis, Missouri) Served as a consulting expert for a Class Action defective product claim filed in Madison County, Illinois against Syngenta and five other manufacturers for atrazine. Evaluated health issues associated with atrazine and deterimied treatment cost for filtration of public drinking water supplies. Resulted in $105 million dollar settlement.

Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert in catalyst release and refinery emissions cases against the BP Refinery in Texas City. A jury verdict for 10 employees exposed to catalyst via BP's irresponsible behavior.

Client: Baron & Budd, P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert to calculate the Maximum Allowable Dose Level ( MADL) and No Significant Risk Level (NSRL), based on Cal EPA and OEHHA guidelines, for Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) in fish oil dietary supplements.

Client: Girardi Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Served as an expert testifying on hydrocarbon exposure of a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by Chevron. Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene.

Client: Mason & Cawood (Annapolis, Maryland) and Girardi & Keese ( Los Angeles, California) Serving as an expert consultant on the Battlefield Golf Club fly ash disposal site in Chesapeake, VA, where arsenic, other metals and radionuclides are leaching into groundwater, and ash is blowing off-site onto the surrounding communities.

Client: California Earth Mineral Corporation (Culver City, California) Evaluating the montmorillonite clay deposit located near El Centro, California. Working as a Defense Expert representing an individual who owns a 2,500 acre parcel that will potentially be seized by the United States Navy via eminent domain.

Client: Matthews & Associates (Houston, Texas)
Serving as an expert witness, preparing air model demonstrating residential exposure via emissions from fracking in natural gas wells in Duncan, Texas.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas) and Korein Tillery (St. Louis, Missouri) Served as a consulting expert for analysis of private wells relating to litigation regarding compensation of private well owners for MTBE testing. Coordinated data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to leaking underground storage tanks.

Client: Lurie & Park LLP (Los Angeles, California)
Served as an expert witness evaluating a vapor intrusion toxic tort case that resulted in a settlement. The Superfund site is a 4 ½ mile groundwater plume of chlorinated solvents in Whittier, California.

Client: Mason & Cawood (Annapolis, Maryland)
Evaluated data from the Hess Gasoline Station in northern Baltimore, Maryland that had a release resulting in flooding of plaintiff’ s homes with gasoline- contaminated water, foul odor, and biofilm growth.

Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Evaluated air quality resulting from grain processing emissions in Muscatine, Iowa.

Client: Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. (Ventura, California) Evaluated historical exposure and lateral and vertical extent of contamination resulting from a ~ 150 million gallon Exxon Mobil tank farm located near Watts, California.

Client: Packard Law Firm (Petaluma, California)
Served as an expert witness, evaluated lead in Proposition 65 Case where various products were found to have elevated lead levels.

April 2013 3 Rosenfeld CV
Client: The Buzbee Law Firm (Houston, Texas)
Evaluated data resulting from an oil spill in Port Arthur, Texas.

Client: Nexsen Pruet, LLC (Charleston, South Carolina)
Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in a railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of chlorine were released.

Client: Girardi & Keese (Los Angeles, California)
Serving as an expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for ~ 600 individuals and ~ 280 properties in Carson, California where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell.

Client: Brent Coon Law Firm (Cleveland, Ohio)
Served as an expert, calculating an environmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery in Hooven, Ohio. Conducted AERMOD modeling to determine cumulative dose.

Client: Lundy Davis (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as consulting expert on an oil field case representing the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted field work evaluating oil field contamination in Sulphur, Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips, but leased by Yellow Rock, a small oil firm.

Client: Cox Cox Filo (Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as testifying expert on a multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006, resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of workers and residents. Prepared air model and calculated exposure concentration. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms.

Client: Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (San Francisco, California) Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in Santa Maria, California. Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting in diminished property value.

Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C. (Los Angeles, California) Served as testifying expert representing individuals who rented homes on the Inglewood Oil Field in California.

Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocarbon contaminated water and air, and experienced health harms associated with the petroleum exposure.

Client: Orange County District Attorney (Orange County, California) Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney’ s prosecution of CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as a testifying expert in a health effects case against ABC Coke/ Drummond Company for polluting a community with PAHs, benzene, particulate matter, heavy metals, and coke oven emissions. Created air dispersion models and conducted attic dust sampling, exposure modeling, and risk assessment for plaintiffs.

Client: Masry & Vitatoe (Westlake Village, California), Engstrom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, Califronia) and Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against major oil companies for benzene and toluene releases from gas stations and refineries resulting in contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $ 110 million dollars in injunctive relief.

Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin, Texas)
Served as expert evaluating groundwater contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Evaluated drinking water contamination and community exposure.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas) and Sher Leff (San Francisco, California) Served as consulting expert for several California cities that filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted wells for various municipalities.

April 2013 4 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Weitz & Luxenberg (New York, New York)
Served as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance claims resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping, and the EPA fined the landfill $10,000,000 dollars.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as a consulting expert for a groundwater contamination case in Pensacola, Florida where fluorinated compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as an expert on groundwater case where Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost, and flaws with the proposed on- site remediation.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorporated facility in West Helena, Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides.

Client: Omara & Padilla (San Diego, California)
Served as a testifying expert on nuisance case against Nutro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville, California with no odor control devices.

The facility has undergone significant modifications, including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage and medical monitoring claims that have been filed against International Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities located in Bastrop, Louisiana; Prattville, Alabama; and Georgetown, South Carolina.

Client: Estep and Shafer L.C. (Kingwood, West Virginia) Served as expert calculating acid emissions doses to residents resulting from coal-fired power plant emissions in West V
irginia using various air models.

Client: Watts Law Firm (Austin, Texas), Woodfill & Pressler ( Houston, Texas) and Woska & Associates Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/ furans from a BNSF and Koppers Facility in Somerville, Texas. Conducted field sampling, risk assessment, dose assessment and air modeling to quantify exposure to workers and community members.

Client: Environmental Litigation Group (Birmingham, Alabama) Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Conducted blood sampling and environmental sampling to determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs.

Client: Sanders Law Firm (Colorado Springs, Colorado) and Vamvoras & Schwartzberg ( Lake Charles, Louisiana)
Served as an expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake Charles, Louisiana at the Conoco Phillips Refinery.

Client: Baron & Budd P.C. (Dallas, Texas)
Served as consulting expert in a defective product lawsuit against Dow Agroscience focusing on Clopyralid, a recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States.

Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo (New York, New York) and The Cochran Firm (Dothan, Mississippi)
April 2013 5 Rosenfeld CV
Served as an expert regarding community exposure to metals, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/ furans from the burning of Ford paint sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood, New Jersey.

Client: Rose, Klein & Marias LLP (Los Angeles, California) Served as an expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases against individual facilities in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000, hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute.

Client: Rose, Klein & Marias LLP ( Los Angeles, California) and Environmental Law Foundation ( San Francisco, California)
Served as an expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several brands of potato chips for acrylamide concentrations and found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels.

Client: Gonzales & Robinson (Westlake Village, California) Served as a testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron ( Ortho) for allowing a community to be contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Created air dispersion and soil vadose zone transport models, and evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food.

Client: Environment Now (Santa Monica, California)
Served as expert for Environment Now to convince the State of California to file a nuisance claim against automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma- related health care costs.

Client: Trutanich Michell (Long Beach, California)
Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion, particulate air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demonstrate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment.

Client: Azurix of North America (Fort Myers, Florida)
Provided expert opinions, reports and research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites’ boundaries.

Client: MCP Polyurethane (Pittsburg, Kansas)
Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal- laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties.

Risk Assessment And Air Modeling
Client: Hager, Dewick & Zuengler, S.C. (Green Bay, Wisconsin) Conducted odor audit of rendering facility in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Client: ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino, California)
Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state- of-the-art enclosed compost facility. Prepared a traffic analysis and developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8, and 24-hour off-site concentrations of sulfur, ammonia, and amine.

Client: Jefferson PRP Group (Los Angeles, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents and hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy ( formerly Jefferson New Middle School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District.

Client: Covanta (Susanville, California)
Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer.

April 2013 6 Rosenfeld CV
Client: CIWMB (Sacramento, California)
Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Client: Carboquimeca (Bogotá, Columbia)
Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client focusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents present in groundwater used for drinking water.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Used Johnson- Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes.

Client: San Diego State University (San Diego, California) Measured CO2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario for a child resident and a construction worker. Evaluated exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation, incidental soil ingestion, and dermal contact with soil.

Client: MCAS Miramar (San Diego, California)
Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil by comparing site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway scenarios assuming child resident and construction worker particulate and vapor inhalation, soil ingestion, and dermal soil contact.

Client: Naval Weapons Station (Seal Beach, California)
Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals, PCBs, dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk.

Client: King County, Douglas County (Washington State)
Measured PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County, Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations.

Client: King County (Seattle, Washington)
Created emission inventory for several compost and wastewater facilities comparing VOC, particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities.

Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation
Client: Republic Landfill (Santa Clarita, California)
Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Used hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution- to-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity.

Client: California Biomass (Victorville, California)
Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+ events. Used hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilutionto-threshold values, and odor character to evaluate odor sources, character and intensity.

Client: ABT-Haskell (Redlands, California)
Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers, base scrubbers, biofilters, heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.

Client: Synagro (Corona, California)
Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control at an industrial composting facility in Corona, California to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent.

April 2013 7 Rosenfeld CV
Client: Jeff Gage (Tacoma, Washington)
Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/ MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk.

Client: Daishowa America (Port Angeles Mill, Washington) Analyzed industrial paper sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals and nutrients to develop a land application program. Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates.

Client: Jeff Gage (Puyallup, Washington)
Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and conducted EPA dispersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics.

Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/ Remediation Client: Confidential (Downey, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop.

Client: Confidential (West Hollywood, California)
Designing soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managing groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning.

Client: Synagro Technologies (Sacramento, California)
Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids application impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (Treasure Island, California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlorinated solvent, hydrocarbon and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island. Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP, RI/FS, and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation.

Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team (MCAS Tustin, California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment.

Client: Mission Cleaning Facility (Salinas, California) Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen releasing compound ( ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas.

Client: King County (Washington)
Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control.

Client: City of Redmond (Richmond, Washington)
Collected storm water from compost- amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matter- lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction.

Client: City of Seattle (Seattle, Washington)
Measured VOC emissions from Renton wastewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize, quantify, control and estimate risk from VOCs.

Client: Plumas County (Quincy, California)
April 2013 8 Rosenfeld CV
Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1% copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes resulting from hydraulic mining. Installed and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading.

Client: Adams Egg Farm (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digesters at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea. Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas.

Client: BLM (Kremmling, Colorado)
Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river and protected water quality by digging and repairing latrines.

Soil Science and Restoration Projects
Client: Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP (Sacramento, California) Facilitated in assisting Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP in working with the Regional Water Quality board to determine how to utilize Calcium Participate as a by-product of processing sugar beets.

Client: Kinder Morgan (San Diego County, California)
Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline. Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, native grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards.

Client: NAVY BRAC (Orote Landfill, Guam)
Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species’ root- penetration into landfill cap. Plants were used to evapotranspirate water, reducing water leaching through soil profile.

Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles. Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off.

Client: City of Escondido (Escondido, California)
Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido, California.

Client: Home Depot (Encinitas, California)
Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coastal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas, California.

Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant (San Diego, California) Planned, installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California.

Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation (Clatskanie, Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-acre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on genetically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable.

Client: World Wildlife Fund (St. Kitts, West Indies)
Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest. Collaborated with skilled botanists, ornithologists and herpetologists.

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, 2012, 8 (6), 622- 632 April 2013 9 Rosenfeld CV
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. ( 2011). PCBs and Dioxins/ Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011): 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’, in Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII:

Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution, Tallinn, Estonia. 20-22 July, 2009, Southampton, Boston. WIT Press.

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, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

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, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, P. E. Rosenfeld (2007) “ Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility” Environmental Research. 105, pp 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,” Elsevier Publishing, Boston Massachusetts.

Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) ( 2007) “ Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel” Water Science and Technology, In Press.

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, In Press.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. ( 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, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

April 2013 10 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) " Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 171- 178.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) " Value of and Urban Odor Wheel.” ( 2004). 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. Vol. 49, No. 9. pp 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) " Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash", Water Science and Technology, Vol. 49, No. 9. pp. 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 JUL-AUG 2004.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida. June 2 and June 6, 2003.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. “ Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash.” Biocycle, March 2002, Page 42.

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. April 2002.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution. Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4, pp. 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: 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: 388-392.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. Volume 131 No. 1-4, pp. 247-262.

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. Bellevue Washington.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

P. Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, Vol. 3 No. 2.

P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993.

P. Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St. Kitts. Surf Report, April issue.

April 2013 11 Rosenfeld CV
P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

England Environmental Agency, 2002. Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury BRISTOL, BS32 4UD.

Presentations
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. " Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.

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. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois." Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston, MA, June 20-23, 2010.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (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” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 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” Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23, 2009. Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “ Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility” Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) “ The Repeated Trespass of Tritium- Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant” Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 2007) “ Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions” Poster Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. “ Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane ( TCP)” – Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences AEHS) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007.

Rosenfeld P. E. “Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/ Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama” – Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 3/2007.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. ( 2006) “ Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts. November 4 to 8th, 2006.

April 2013 12 Rosenfeld CV
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “ Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” Mealey’ s C8/PFOA Science, Risk & Litigation Conference” October 24, 25. The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP.” PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19. Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs.” Mealey’ s Groundwater Conference. September 26, 27. Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.” International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “ Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals”. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005.

Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. “Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation.” 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert- butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference.

May 5-6, 2004. Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th, 2004. Pheonix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium.

California Ground Water Association. Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. April 7, 2004.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. February 20-21, 2003. Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott Hotel. Anaheim California. February 6-7, 2003.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California. October 23, 2002.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10.

April 2013 13 Rosenfeld CV
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Vancouver Washington. September 22-24.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland.

November 11-14.

Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation.

Anaheim California. September 16, 2000.

Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000. Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000. Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. 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. 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. 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, Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan, 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, Anaheim California.

Professional History
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ( SWAPE); 2003 to present; Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2010; Lecturer ( Asst Res) 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 April 2013 14 Rosenfeld CV
Teaching Experience
UCLA Department of Environmental Health ( Summer 2003 through 2010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focuses 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.

April 2013 15 Rosenfeld CV
Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
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) 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
April 2013 16 Rosenfeld CV
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) 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) 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
In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo, et al. Plaintiffs Vs. California Spray Company, et al. Defendants Case No CV 146344
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
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
2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206
Newport Beach, California 92660
Tel: 949) 887 9013
Fax: 949) 717 0069
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 Certification:

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 present;
Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc 2000 2003); 2 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 numerous environmental impact reports under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and geologic hazards.

Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.

Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.

Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a comunity adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.

Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.

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.

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 dischrge 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 part B permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.

Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractors investigationsf 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 investigationsof contaminantsat parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.Identified
high levels of perchlorate insoil adjacent toa national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent onappropriate response actions under CERCLA. Served as a Park Service representative onthe Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee,anational workgroup. Developed
aprogram toconduct 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 tothe Federal Multi Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.Policy:

Served
senior management asthe 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 tocontaminate drinking water supplies. Shaped
EPA’s national response tothese 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 EPAs scientific and engineering staff.Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s300 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 currently teaches Physical Geology lecture and lab) to students at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California.

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 at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 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.

Susana Barrios
From: RobertKrueger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] FW: commentary onproposed SALT/DeerCanyon development Attachments: 2024-10-27_Anaheim_City_Council_Mayor.pdf
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

From: RobertKrueger <
Date: Sunday, October27, 2024at3:49PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] [email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] [email protected]>
Subject: commentaryonproposedSALT/DeerCanyondevelopment DearMembers oftheAnaheim CityCouncil, MayorAitken, CityManager VanderPool, Although quitelateintheprocess, attached aremycomments ontheproposed SALT/DeerCanyon development. These comments arespecifically directed attheimpact ontraffic, whichare, inmy opinion, poorly addressed intheEnvironmental Impact Report.

IhopethattheCouncil willshowmoreconcern forthecitizens ofAnaheim thandidthePlanning Commission andreject thisdevelopment ascurrently proposed.

Thank youforconsidering thesecomments.

RobertRKrueger
1 2024- 10- 27
Subject: Proposed SALT development in Anaheim Hills
To: Anaheim City Council and Mayor’ s Ofce
From: Robert R Krueger, APN
I was disappointed to learn that the Anaheim Planning Commission approved the proposed SALT development in the Anaheim Hills area in spite of opposition from “ City staff” Planning commission approves 498- unit Anaheim Hills apartment complex – Orange County Register . I read this piece of news while at Roosevelt Drive north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, vainly attempting to turn left… however, traffic was backed up into the intersection and I was not able to get to SAVI Ranch that evening. This is, unfortunately, not uncommon… at times, traffic is backed up on Santa Ana Canyon from Gypsum Canyon to Lakeview
I realize that I am late in commenting on this project, but I am writing to urge the council not to approve this project due to its adverse impact on traffic. There may be other areas that are problematic, but I did not have time to review the EIR in its entirety. I did review the section on traffic circulation https:// www. anaheim. net/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 55867/ Appendix- L_Traffic as the impact on traffic may be the largest problem with this proposed project. As a lay person, I did not find this section credible. There are a number of areas that are problematic and, if I were peer- reviewing this, I would have returned it to its authors for revision. I am not sure why these issues were overlooked by the Commission, which presumably has more expertise than I in evaluating these documents.

I drive between Lakeview Road and Weir Canyon Road on Santa Ana Canyon Road daily, switching in that area to shared transportation, as I have done for 20 years. Therefore, my comments are colored by extensive personal observations.

Regarding the referenced “ Appendix- L”, it apparently only considered traffic between Imperial and Weir Canyon.

Yet, the proposed development would also affect traffic west of Imperial and east of Weir Canyon, particularly on Santa Ana Canyon Road between Weir Canyon and Gypsum Canyon. This section is already often gridlocked during commute hours. In addition, the proposed project will also most probably further degrade the already overcrowded Riverside 91 Freeway.

Section 3.4 states that traffic “ observations” on which the analysis was prepared were made on only 2 days. This is an unacceptably low number of observations on which to base models. Typically, models would be based on a high number of observations monitored over a much longer period of time than the May and December period used here. It should be noted that the dates of observation stated are inconsistent, further calling into question the meticulousness of this analysis.

Section 3.7 States that LOS D is "minimum acceptable condition" but is only " fair" as per Table 3-1. It is stated that " LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) is the performance standard that has been adopted for the study area circulation system by the City of Anaheim." So this apparently does not meet that standard. LOS D is already a low LOS and it is unclear why a project that will further degrade it is considered acceptable. The study states that the further degradation is insignificant ( Table 7-1) but it would seem that further degradation of an already marginal LOS is not in the interests of the residents. Section 3.8 admits that some sections already do not meet the minimal LOS. It also references an “ Appendix C” but there are no appendices in this portion and other appendices labelled C are not relevant.

The data shown in some of the figures ( for instance, Figures 5-2 through 5-7) does not seem credible. For instance, there appears to be a 20 – 30 % decrease and increase in traffic between Eucalyptus and Festival, eastbound and westbound, respectively, even though there is nothing there but the self- storage facility.

Comparison of Tables 5-1 and 6-2 appears to show that SALT project will add greater traffic load than the other 8 projects combined. In addition, Tables 12- 2 and 12- 3 show project will adversely affect already unacceptable conditions in 2029 and in the General Plan build out. City of Anaheim " Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA Analysis" https:// www. anaheim. net/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 32774/ City- of-Anaheim- TIA- Guidelines- forCEQA- Analysis- 62020 shows this area already has high Vehicle Miles Travelled ( higher than OC average and highest in the City of Anaheim).

The proposed stoplight at the driveway into the proposed project will further degrade the already poor flow of traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. In addition, the proposed mitigation measures https:// anaheim. net/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 56013/ 10_ Executive_ Summary basically encourage the use of alternative transportation so potentially do not mitigate at all. It is stated that the installation of a sidewalk will increase pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians already walk between the project area and Festivals and Eucalyptus Dr.

In addition, walking between the proposed project and Festivals would do nothing to mitigate the main effect on commuter traffic.

My comments are those of a lay person rather quickly reading through sections of the report. I am sure that trained personnel would find even more problematic sections. As it is, the poor quality of this section calls into question the reliability of the other sections ( although they are not all generated by the same entities).

The remarks by the developer regarding the sidewalks are misleading. Other remarks made by the developer are also misleading, perhaps intentionally so. The developer states that Deer Canyon is “inaccessible” and “ underutilized”, although no criteria are stated for the latter. In fact, Deer Canyon is accessible by at least 4 or 5 entrances. I, and others, utilize this resource on a regular basis. This calls into question the developer’ s honesty and integrity.

The developers knew the zoning of this parcel when they acquired it and it is unclear as to why they would develop a proposal incompatible with the zoning. According to https:// www. ocregister. com/ 2024/ 10/ 01/ planningcommission- approves- 498- unit- anaheim- hills- apartment- complex , SALT Development had notified the city that if the project were denied they would be pursuing a builder’ s remedy application, allowing them to bypass current density limits and build a much larger project. Their builder’ s remedy plans would see 1,280 units built in the Hills with 20% being affordable.

This is bullying and sounds like extortion.

In sum, in my opinion the effects of the SALT project on traffic alone should disqualify it for approval by the Council. If this project is approved, it will further cement the image of Anaheim as “ a secretive cabal” https:// calmatters. org/ commentary/ 2023/ 08/anaheim- corruption- southern- california- cities/ that is more interested in assisting outside special interests than in the best interests of its citizens. I therefore urge the council to reject this proposal.

Susana Barrios
From: Lindaelliott2000 < lindaelliott2000@aol. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

AsaresidentofAnaheimHillsIamstronglyopposedtotheSaltDevelopmentProjectofDeerCanyon. I havebeenaresidentsincethelate80’s. Thedevelopments inthisareahas Madethisareaimpossibletogetaroundwithalltheresidentsandoutsidecommuters.

Iamworriednotonlyabouttraffic, butalsothehighfiredangerandevacuationprocess, theimpactof overcrowdinginourschools.

Withthefestivalareaalsoproposingadditionalapartmentstheincreaseofthetwoprojectswilladda minimumof1000 - 2000vehicles.

Also, it’smyunderstanding thatwewillberequiredtoalsoaddaffordablehousingperstatelaw. Which seemstheseprojectshaveonlycarvedoutasmallnumberofaffordablehousing. Doesthatevensatisfy ourobligationforhavinglowincomehousinginthisarea?
Thetrafficisalreadymaxedoutandit’sbecomesodifficulttogetanywhereinthearea. Withonlylimited waystogetinandoutofthisalreadyheavilyburdentrafficissues.

MysolutionforshoppingwillbetotravelintheoppositedirectiontoshopinthecityofOrange. Itmaynot meanmuchtolosethesalestaxIcurrentlycontributeto, buttherewillalsobepeoplelikemethat choosetostopanddotheirerrandsinothercitiesinlieuofsittingintraffic.

J. LindaElliott
SentfromtheallnewAOLappforiOS
1 Susana Barrios
From: pallavi tadwalkar <forgetnotpal@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon atAnaheim Hills.

Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Residentsatthiscommunityarerequestingtostopthesaltproject. Thereisareasonbehindthis. We can’taccommodate morepeoplehere. Assuchthetrafficisanightmareandiffireemergencycomes, peoplehavehardtimetoescapethat. Ihopetheofficialswilltakeanoteofthat.

Thereisanopenlandeverywhere, whyhere????
Theyneedtofigureoutthetrafficsituationtoo!
Thanks.

Sent fromYahoo MailforiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Colleen Hauk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Development
Attachments: LetterDeerCanyon Oct292024.pdf
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomItMayConcern:

AsanewlyengagedcoupleinOctoberof2002, myhusband, Matt, andIpurchasedourfirsthome togetherinAnaheimHills. MattmovedhereasachildandIstillrememberhisexcitementdrivingme throughalloftheneighborhoods thatherememberedfromchildhoodaswesearchedforourforever home. 22yearsandthreekidslater, wearestillhere!
In2008, whenIwaspregnantwithouryoungestofthreechildren, weexperiencedourfirstwildfireand homeevacuation. Butthefiresin2017scaredusmost! Itwasn’tbecausewehadtoevacuate, itwas becauseofthechaosandtrafficthatkeptusfromknowingifwewouldeverevenmakeittoourhome.

Weliveat whichispartofthehomesthatrunparallelbetweenSantaAna CanyonRoadandthe91freeway, inbetweenEucalyptusDriveandSolomonDrive. A15+ footbrickwall separatesusfromthefreeway, sotheonlywayoutofourneighborhood isviaSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

Butonthedayofthisfire, Mattcouldhardlymakeitbacktoourhomefromthenearbygasstation. And whileIwasabletogetfromIrvinetoCrescentElementarytopickupourchildren, Iwasunabletogetus toourhome. Anditwasnotbecausethefiredepartmentblockedtheroute, itwasthesheervolumeof automobilesonSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

JustthispastFriday, October25, at5:15pm, thisiswhatIencounteredasIwastravelingfrommyhome totheFestivalShoppingCenter:
1 ThisissimplytrafficonaFridayevening!
Nowimaginewhatthislookslikeduringafireevacuation!
Thenimaginewhatthislookslikeduringafireevacuationwithanadditional1,200peopleand1,000cars iftheDeerCanyondevelopment weretomoveforward!
AnaheimHillsisawildfireproneareaandIfearformyfamily’ssafety, evenbefore1,000morecars wouldbeinthearea, muchlessafter!
Iloveourhome, Iloveourneighbors, Iloveourcommunity, andIhopetheCityofAnaheimmakesthe rightdecisiontocareforthesafetyofitscitizensbyvotingagainsttheDeerCanyonDevelopment.

Sincerely,
ColleenHauk
P.S. NotonlyhasmyhusbandMattandhismomlivedinthiscommunityforover45years, wearealso highlyinvolved. MattistheBranchManageroftheCentury21inAnaheimHillsandI’vebeencoaching communitymembersthroughtheirfitnessjourneyforover15yearsatthe24-HourFitnessinAnaheim Hills. Inaddition, IcurrentlyserveasVicePresidentoftheCanyonHSGirlsLacrosseBoosterClub. 2 NotonlydidmyhusbandattendCrescentElementary, ElRancho, andgraduatefromCanyonHigh School, allthreeofourchildrenhaveenjoyedtheirelementaryschoolsinthearea, alsoattendedEl RanchoJuniorHigh, andtwohavegraduatedfrom withouryoungestonherwayasacurrent Sophomore. They’veparticipatedinAnaheimHillsLittleLeague, CanyonHillsSoccer, and SchoolLacrosse.

Withallofthemoneyanddedicationwe’vegiventobusinesses, schoolsandtaxesinAnaheimHillsfor 22years, again, IhopetheCityofAnaheimmakestherightdecisiontocareforthesafetyofitscitizensby votingagainsttheDeerCanyonDevelopment.
3 age 2
Susana Barrios
From: TylerBaker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toHillsPreserve
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hi,
AsacurrentresidentofAnaheimHillslocatedintheRS-3plot (pertheGeneralAmendment andZone Reclassification) sinceSeptember2017, Iwaspresentduringthe2017CanyonFirethatcaused extremecongestionasaresultofvoluntaryresidentfireevacueesalongSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

Thesituationwasanabsolutemess, andthatmesswouldonlybeexacerbated bymovingforward withtheHillsPreservedevelopment projectbeingpushedbySALTDevelopment toadd densehousingalongSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

Istronglyopposethisdevelopment asdoesyourCityPlanningemployees, FireChief, andPolice Chief. IaddedtheSeptember30thPlanningCommission meetingtovoicemyopposition, andthat sessionmadeclearthatyourPlanningCommissioners hadneitherthesafetyorwell-beingof AnaheimHillsresidentsinmindwhenrecommending thisdevelopmentbeapproved. Iaskthatthe CityCouncilnotfollowtherecommendation ofitsPlanningCommission.

Thanks,
TylerBaker
1 Susana Barrios
From: TylerBaker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Re: Opposition toHillsPreserve
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Myaddressis Anaheim, CA92808.

OnTue, Oct29, 2024at10:38AMTylerBaker <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,
AsacurrentresidentofAnaheimHillslocatedintheRS-3plot (pertheGeneralAmendment and ZoneReclassification) sinceSeptember2017, Iwaspresentduringthe2017CanyonFirethat causedextremecongestionasaresultofvoluntaryresidentfireevacueesalongSantaAnaCanyon Road. Thesituationwasanabsolutemess, andthatmesswouldonlybeexacerbated bymoving forwardwiththeHillsPreservedevelopment projectbeingpushedbySALTDevelopment toadd densehousingalongSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

Istronglyopposethisdevelopment asdoesyourCityPlanningemployees, FireChief, andPolice Chief. IaddedtheSeptember30thPlanningCommission meetingtovoicemyopposition, andthat sessionmadeclearthatyourPlanningCommissioners hadneitherthesafetyorwell-beingof AnaheimHillsresidentsinmindwhenrecommending thisdevelopmentbeapproved. Iaskthatthe CityCouncilnotfollowtherecommendation ofitsPlanningCommission.

Thanks,
TylerBaker
1 Susana Barrios
From: SuThome <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\]
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomthismayconcern:

OurfamilyhaslivedinAnaheimHillsforthepast27years. Ourdesiretomoveherewastheloveofour neighborhood andthequietnessofthearea.

Thesepastfewyearsthetraffichasbeenoutrageous. SantaAnaCanyonhastakenalargehitwiththe amountofcarsinthe area. EveryonegetsoffateitherLakevieworImperialtotrytocuttheirwaittime downonthe91. ThiscausesusAnaheimHillscitizenstotalheadaches. Tryingtogetanywhereafter3:30 anydayoftheweekishorrible. Weliveabout3blocksfromthisproposedbuildingsite. Godforbidthere isafireanywhereinthisareaandweneedtoevacuate? Itwillbeimpossible. Wetriedtogetourdaughter whowasinhighschoolatthetimein2017. IleftandsatdeadstoponSAC, foroveranhour…….madeit toMohler!! WeliveoffEucalyptus/SAC. Addmorecarstothisincaseofanykindofemergency. Itwould behorribletoloseafamilyinAnaheimHillsbecausetheycouldnotevacuatetheirhome.

IwouldgladlywelcomeanymemberofCitycounciltojoinmeonaridejusttoCostcoat4:00anydayyou choose.

Whenitcomestimetovote. PleaseconsiderthegreatresidentsofAnaheimHillsandwhatwehavein thiscommunityovermoney. Moneyisn’teverything. People’ssafetyshouldbeapriority. Rememberthis whenit’stime.

Thankyou,
SuThome
1 Susana Barrios
From: Barbara Wahlbrink <barbwahlbrink@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTProject Concerns
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

To: AnaheimCityCouncil
TheproposedSALTProjectinAnaheimHillscontinuestobeaseriousconcerntoAnaheim Hillsresidentsduetoseveralissues:

TRAFFIC: ThelargeamountoftrafficthatexistsonSantaAna CanyonRoad, especially headingEast, isalreadynightmarish startingintheearlyafternoon (afterElRancho MiddleSchoolandCanyonHIghSchooldismiss) through6:30PM. BeginningatImperial Highwayandthe91Freeway, weexperienceanenormousamountoftrafficwhichextends furtherEast. Attemptingtogetonthe91FreewayatWeirCanyonRd. goingEastisalso extremelydifficultatpresent. Withthelargenumberofadditionalresidentslivingatthis projecttheprospectsoftravelingonthisroadwillbeunimaginable.

FIRE: Whenandifanotherfireeruptsinourarea, theadditional trafficasmentionedabovewillsurelydeadlocktheroadswithin AnaheimHills, preventingasafeexitwithourexistingroads. Thisprojectwillimpedetheareaforexit.

ROADACCESS: Withtheaforementionedconcerns, thereseeminglyhasbeennomention ofaseriousadditionofroadaccesstoassistinthealreadyover-concentratedamountof trafficinourarea. ItseemsprudentatthistimetocontactCALTRANSregardingapotential extensionofS. FairmontBlvd. tothe91FreewayandeventoE. LaPalmaAve. Thiswouldbe thetimetoconsiderthisimportantextensionwhichwouldnodoubtneedapprovalfromour staterepresentativesandarearesidents. Althoughthecostofsuchaprojectwouldbelarge, itseemsthatanylargedevelopmentsuchasTheSaltProjectshouldbeprovidingmonies towardanyroadimprovementsuchasthis.

AlthoughthearchitecturalplansoftheSALTProjectarebeautifulanddoallowusaccesstoa previouslyinaccessibleCityPark, theaboveconcernsstillloomlargeinthealreadycrowded conditionsofourbelovedAnaheimHills.
1 PleasetaketheseconsiderationsseriouslyandassuretheresidentsofAnaheimHillsthat youwillcontinuetoservethemandbeconsiderateofourconcernsregardingtheSALT Project.

Sincerely,
BarbaraWahlbrink
AnaheimHills, CA92807
2 Susana Barrios
From: DianeMyers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Iama50yearresidentofAnaheimHillsandopposerezoningDeerCanyon.

First, thisareawasdonatedtoAnaheimtopreserveopenspace.

Second, ourareanowhasgridlockfromdriverstryingtoavoidthe91freeway. It’samessandhasbeen foryears.

Thirdly, adding1,000morecarstotheareaisdangerous. Thelastfiresshowedushowimpossibleitisto getoutofthearea. Totalgridlock. Thefreewayfirewasdownrightscary.

Theplanningcommission, fireandpolicechiefsandmoreopposerezoning. Thecitycouncilshouldvote tostopthisinsanityorfaceongoinglitigationandaveryvocalpopulationofthousandsofresidentswho won’tsilentlygoaway. Dowhatisrightplease.

DianeMyers
1 Susana Barrios
From: joegutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Proposed SaltDevelopment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

HonorableMayorandCityCouncilMembers,
Approximatelyonemonthago, theplanningcommissionvotedtoapprovetheSaltdevelopmentagainstthe recommendationofcitystaffanddepartmentheads. ( FireandPoliceChiefs) Wehireandpaythisstafftoshowus thebestwayforwardasacommunity. Inmyopiniontheactionsoftheplanningcommissionarebadforour communityandgovernmentalmalpractice.

I’mincludingsomehighlightsfromthe “AfterActionReport” oftheFreewayComplexFireofNovember15, 2008 Theentirereportisavailableonline.

Thefireburned30,305acresanddamagedordestroyedover381homes, commercialstructures, andout-buildings.

Numerousvehicles, cityparks, andsensitiveecologicalareasintheChinoHillsStateParkandtheSantaAnaRiver riparianareawerealsodamagedordestroyed. Theimpacttoresidentsandbusinessesfromsmokeexposureor damage, aswellastheeconomicimpact, isdifficulttocalculate. (pg.8) TheSantaAnaCanyon’ssteeptopographyandeast-westalignmentserveasawindfunnel. Thegeographyincreases thewind’sspeedandmagnifiestheeffectsoffireontheavailablefuelbed, contributingtotherapidrateoffire spread. Additionally, theencroachmentofcivilizationintothewildland-urbaninterface (WUI) enhancestheseverity ofwildlandfiresduringSantaAnawindconditions. Thefrequencyoffireinthisareahasallowednon-native vegetationofvolatilegrass, weeds, andshrubstobecomethedominantfueltype. (pg11) OCFAHelicopter41reportedseeingspotfiresfromonetooneandahalfmilesaheadofthefirefront. Thesesame windspushedtheFreewayComplexFireatanincrediblerateofspread. HistoricalInformation – Map1showsover 10,000acreswereconsumedinthefirst12hours—roughly14acresperminute. That’snearlythelengthof14 footballfieldsevery60seconds
pg. 12)
Attheonsetoftheevacuation, trafficgridlockedinsomeareasasemergencyapparatustriedtoenterthe neighborhoodswhileresidentstriedtoexit.

Pg61)
Evacuationofresidentsisoneofthechallengescreatedbyawildland-urbaninterfacefire. TheFreewayFirespread sorapidlyemergencyresponderscouldonlyestimatethedirectionandthetimeofimpacttoagivenneighborhood.

Withinminutesofignition, spottingwasreportedonemiledownwindfromthemainbody. Althoughafire’srateof spreadistypicallymeasuredinacresperhour, theFreewayFirewasdrivenby40mphwindsandrequired 1 measurementinacresperminute. Motoristsdrivingonthe91Freewayreportedtheycouldnotkeepupwiththefire asitspreadthroughwildlandareas—evenwhiledrivingatspeedsof50mph.

Pg62)
Windblownembers, carriedaloftbythefire’sthermalcolumn, createdspotfiresmorethanamileaheadofthemain firefront. Thesespotfiresthenmergedwiththemainflamefront. Thisrapidlycompressedthetransformationtime frombrushfireintourbanconflagration.

Pg.99)
Homeowners—thoseremainingwithinthefireperimeterandthosewhoevacuated— createdtrafficchallenges inhibitingthemovementoffireapparatus.

Thespeedandunpredictabilitybywhichthefiremovedthroughtheurbaninterfacemadeitchallengingto stayaheadthefireandrapidlyidentifyareastobeevacuated.

Pg.100)
ARedFlagWarningoraRedFlagFireWeatherWatchhadnotbeenissuedforOrangeCounty. Windpredictionfor thedaywassignificantlydifferentthanexperienced. ThisresultedintheOCFAnotimplementingitsExtreme WeatherPlan (SOP209.13) ortheRedFlagAlertProgram (SOP209.12). Eitherorbothwouldhaveincreased publicawarenessandimplementedoperationalproceduresinresponsetotheextremeweatherconditions.

Pg.101)
Finally, InresponsetotheDEIR,
Alternative #2 – ReducedDevelopmentSupplementalEvacuationTravelTimeAnalysisforTheHillsPreserve Project, Anaheim)
SupplementalEvacuationTravelTimeAnalysisTechnicalMemorandumfortheproposedTheHillsPreserveProject hereinafterreferredtoas “Project”), locatedintheCityofAnaheim, California. ThepurposeofthisSupplemental EvacuationTravelTimeAnalysisistoevaluatethetraveltimedifferenceassociatedwithDraftEnvironmental ImpactReport (DEIR) ProjectAlternative
The21minuteevacuationtraveltimeincreaserepresentsa11% traveltimeincreaseoverthewithoutproject trafficcondition. Asstatedabove, thisassumesafireoriginlocatedimmediatelyeastoftheprojectsite.

Contextiseverythingforthisstudy.

1. Whatweretheweatherconditionsforthisevacuationscenario?

2. Whatwasthetimeofday?

3. Afirestarting “immediatelyeast” oftheprojectwouldnotpresentthesameriskandchallengestoour communityasafireoriginatinginthehillsorcanyoneastofWeirCanyonRoad.

Thankyouforyoutimeandcommitmenttoourcommunity.

Sincerely,
JoeGutierrez (AnaheimFireRetired)
2 Susana Barrios
From: HRamsay <paperplateproductions@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Saltproject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

October 29, 2024
Re: CityCouncil Meeting 10/29/24
DearCityCouncil members,
Iwantyoutothinkbacktothosethatcamebefore you. No, notrecent past, butback tothe70sand before. Please honorandrespect thecouncil members thatcamebefore youandhadtheforesight toputtogether amaster planforthecommunity ofEastAnaheim. Serious thought wasgivento zoning, landuse, openspace, thescenic corridor, wildlife andtreepreservation.

Istandinopposition tochangingthezoning thatwasputinplace. Thezoning wasinitially approved forareason. Canyons aresliversofproperty thatdonotsupportmultipleingressandegress roads. Therefore, thepresent homedensity zoning reflects thisuniquefeature. Tochange the zoning andallowhigher density building doesnotmakesense.

Canyons arebeautiful, buttheyarealsofragile. Therehavebeenlandslides, earth movement, flooding, andwildfires. Wearelosingthehabitat forthewildlife thatcallsthisareahome. Howmany deerhaveyouseenrecently? Sadly, veryfew, ifany.

Willyouwillingly godowninAnaheim’shistory asonethathelped topreserve ouropenspaces, or onethatdestroyed EastAnaheim?
Sincerely,
HelenRamsay
1 Susana Barrios
From: AlisonHooker <alisonlhooker@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon_inoppostion
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomitMayConcern,
IamaresidentofAnaheimHillsandIaminoppositionofbuilding500apartmentsinDeerCanyon.

Thisdevelopment wouldendanger thewildlife, poseasubstantial firethreattosurrounding communities, andwouldforever change thelandscape andflowoftraffic inourcommunity.

Pleasekeepourgreenspace.

Pleaseconsiderthesafetyofresidentsincaseofevacuationduetofireandearthquakes.

PleaseconsiderworseningtrafficonSantaAnaCanyon.

Sincerely
1 Susana Barrios
From: JoannaVan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: QB
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomItMayConcern,
Pleasereconsiderbeforegoingaheadwiththisdevelopment project. Haveyouseenthetrafficand gridlockinthelastfewfires? Firesarespreadingfastandwiththetrafficandsmoke, itisatrap. Please considerallthehumansandthewildlifeatstake.

I'mawareyoudidatrafficsurveybutthatwasdoneinthemiddleoftheday. Lookattheafternoonand eveningrushhourtraffic. Wehavemanyresidentssharingpicturesofcarsbackedupformiles. Theother day, Icouldn'tgetoutofmyneighborhood toquicklypickupanitematthegrocerystore. Thatwas around5:45pm!
AndhereyouhaveaCityCouncilmeetinginthemiddleoftheweekatatimewheremostpeoplearejust leavingwork. Thisisoutrightintentional, notallowingusresidentstohaveavoice. Iurgeyoutopleasedo therightthing.

Thankyou.

Regards,
Joanna
AConcernedAnaheimHillsResident
Anaheim, CA92808
1 Susana Barrios
From: HalBarstow <
Sent: Tuesday, October29, 202411:00AM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Development Application No. 2021-00137, FinalEnvironmental ImpactReport (FEIR) No. 355and Mitigation MonitoringProgramNo. 390
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

To: Anaheim CityCouncil reabove andHillsPreserve Specific Plan Asresidents ofAnaheim Hillsforjustover50years (since9/09/74inthesamehome) andas witnesses tothetraffic caused bynumerous wildfires overthistime, wecannot staysilentregarding theheavy handed lackofconcern forpublic safety exemplified bytherecent actions oftheAnaheim CityCouncil regarding thisissue.

Thisproject shouldneverhaveadvanced tothispointintheadministrative process, giventhelocal public sentiment against itandthenegative professional opinions statedbythemanagement ofthe Anaheim Police andFireDepartment.

Thelastfirecaused aneartotalblockage ofCanyon RimRoadandNohlRanch Road, whichare bothvisible fromtheyardofourhome. Theproposed development woulddefinitely further addtothe evacuation trafficback-uponSantaAnaCanyon Road, ontowhichthetwoabove named arteries eventually feed.

Sincerely,
Harold andCheriBarstow
Anaheim Hills, CA
92807
Cell:
1 2
Susana Barrios
From: KristenKarpow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Please OPPOSE theHillsPreserve
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
Iamwriting, asaresidentofAnaheimHills, tourgeyoutoOPPOSEtheproposaltoapprovetheHills PreserveProject. IamraisingmyfamilyhereinAnaheimHills, andIservethisverycommunityasa CountyofOrangeemployee. AsaChieffortheOrangeCountyHealthCareAgency - EmergencyMedical ServicesDepartment, withexperienceworkingasanER/TraumaRegisteredNurseinadenselypopulated OCareafor10+ years, Iknowfirsthandtherisksanddangersofincreasinghumanpopulationinanarea thatdoesnothavetheinfrastructure tosupportthis.

Myreasonsforurgingyoutoopposethisproposalareasfollows:

1. Unsafetrafficdelaysintheeventofamandatoryfireevacuation TheAnaheimHillscommunityisjustthat. Acommunityofneighborhoods builtamongsmallhills withasingleroadtoaccess/exitthoseneighborhood hills. Myfamilyhaslivedherefor40+ years, andhasbeenthroughseveralmandatoryfireevacuations. Themostrecentevacuationsaw vehicles, andthefamiliesinsidethem, stuckonthesesingleroadsforHOURSwhilefiresragedin thesurroundingcanyons, hills, andgreenbelts - gettingcloserandcloser. TheHillsPreserve, with itsnearly500dwellingunits, willaddhundredsifnotover1000newvehiclestothearea. This wouldcauseadramatically increaseddelayinevacuationtimes, puttingexistingAnaheimHills residents’ andfamilies‘ livesatrisk.

OntheHillsPreserve’swebsiteFAQ, theirresponsetotheconcernofgridlockwas, “our developmentheavilypromotesasustainableworkingenvironmentthatreducestheneedfor commutingaltogether.” Firstofall, thereisnowaytheycanguaranteethatthemajorityoftheir renterswillworkfromhome. Secondofall, thisanswerdoesNOTatalladdresstheconcernI mentionedaboveintheeventofafireevacuation, withtheHillsPreservepotentiallyadding hundredsofcarstoasmallcommunitywithsingleroadsthatalreadytakeHOURSforfire evacuationtheresidentswealreadyhave.

2. Overcrowding oflocalschools
AnaheimHillsonlyhasONEpublicHighSchoolandONEpublicmiddleschoolforallofits residents. ThepublicelementaryschoolsthatserveAnaheimHillsarealreadyovercrowdedas well. MyhusbandhasbeenaschoolteacherwithOrangeUnifiedSchoolDistrict (including 1 AnaheimHillspublicschools), andwillbethefirsttosaythatourclassroomsareovercrowded.

Mydaughter’sKindergartenclassinourlocalAnaheimHillselementaryschoollastschoolyear had30childreninit, whichherteacherhadtomanagewithoutanaide. Ivolunteeredregularlyin theclassroom, andwitnessedhowdifficultitwasforoneteachertomaintainclassroom managementandprovideadequateattentiontoeachstudent. TheHillsPreserve, withitsnearly 500units, hasthepotentialtoaddhundredsmorechildrentoouralreadycrowdedschool system.

TheHillsPreserve’swebsiteFAQstates, inresponsetoconcernsonschoolovercrowding, that thisprojectwillhaveveryfewschool-agedchildren. Ourtargetdemographicisyoung, working professionalswithoutchildren.” Thisstatementisaninsulttoourcommunity’sintelligence, and purposelydoesnotaddressthetrueconcern. AccordingtoCaliforniaStatefairhousinglaws, housingprovidersCANNOTdiscriminate againstfamilieswithchildren. Assuch, thereisno realisticwaythatTheHillsPreservecanguaranteetheywon’toverburdenouralreadycrowded publicschoolsysteminAnaheimHills.

3. Disruptionofcommunityenvironment
Myhusband’sfamilychosetoraisehiminthesuburbsofAnaheimHillsforareason. Myown familychosetoraisemeinthesuburbsofneighboringOrangeHeightsforthesamereason. My husbandandIchosetoreturntoAnaheimHills (fromamoredenselypopulatedarea) backin 2018tostartafamily, alsoforthesamereason. Thereason? Aquiet, peaceful, safe, andfamilyorientedcommunityenvironment.

TheHillsPreserve, withits7STORYbuilding, willdisruptthisenvironmentbyintroducingnoise andlightpollutionfromarooftopbar, bowlingalley, andothersuchon-siteamenities. TheHills Preserveclaimsthattheir “targetdemographic” isyoungworkingprofessionalswithoutchildren.

Establishedfamilieswithchildrenarewhatenrichthiscommunity. Ifwewantedtoliveneara rooftopbar, wewouldhavechosentoliveelsewhere. ThefamiliesofAnaheimHillswho CURRENTLYreside, andhaveresidedinthiscommunityforyears, donotwantrooftopbarsorany typeofurbandevelopmentnearwhereweareraisingourchildren.

Insummary, myfamilyandIarelong-termresidentsofAnaheimHillsandbegYOU, ourrepresentatives, tohearourvoices. TheHillsPreserveisUNSAFE, willcauseOVERCROWDING ofbothroadsand schools, andwillDESTROYoursmallcommunityenvironment. Pleasesupportthecurrentresidentsof AnaheimHills, andOPPOSEthedevelopmentofTheHillsPreserve.

Kindregards,
Kristen
KristenN. Karpow, BSN, RN, MICN, CEN
SystemsandStandardsChief
OrangeCountyEmergencyMedicalServices
Personal:

Work: [email protected]
Office: (
2 Susana Barrios
From: LEEDAVIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Overcrowded onSantaAnaCanyon Road Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern:

ThetraconSantaAnaCanyonRoadhasbecomeunbearable. Ittookme30minutestogetfromVonstoFairmontat4 o’clockyesterday thatisunacceptable.

It’sge?ngworseeverydayandwhenschoolgetsoutit’sanightmare youmightaswellforgetevenge?ngontheroad andyouwanttoputahigh-riseup, haveyoupeoplelostyourmindspleasestopthisinsanity, itisnotgoodforour community. Pleaseconsider building itsomewhere else, wherethereislesstracandlessvulnerability toreandour exitsforsafety.

Sincerely,
LeeDavis
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: AlisonHooker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon_inoppostion
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomitMayConcern,
IamaresidentofAnaheimHillsandIaminoppositionofbuilding500apartmentsinDeerCanyon.

Thisdevelopment wouldendanger thewildlife, poseasubstantial firethreattosurrounding communities, andwouldforever change thelandscape andflowoftraffic inourcommunity.

Pleasekeepourgreenspace.

Pleaseconsiderthesafetyofresidentsincaseofevacuationduetofireandearthquakes.

PleaseconsiderworseningtrafficonSantaAnaCanyon.

Sincerely,
AlisonandMikeHooker
OCMTBRaceDirectors
http://www.ocmtb.com/
1 Susana Barrios
From: ShaneH. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, AM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] PublicComment - Proposed DeerCanyon Apartment Project Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil,
Iamwritingtoexpressmyseriousconcernsregardingtheproposed498-unitDeerCanyonapartmentcomplex inAnaheimHills. WhileIalsorecognizetheneedtoaddressSouthernCalifornia’shousingchallenges, this particulardevelopmentonthe76-acrewildernessareaoffSantaAnaCanyonRoadraisesseveralcritical issuesthatwouldnegativelyimpactourcommunityandenvironment. Safetyhastotheparamount factorin thisdecision.

1. IncreasedSafetyRisksinaHigh-RiskZone: Addingnearly500unitsinAnaheimHillsraisesserioussafety concerns. OurareasitsneartheSanAndreasFault, increasingtheriskofstructuralfailureandsignificant dangerduringearthquakes. Additionally, AnaheimHillsisathighriskforwildfires, andtheincreasedpopulation densitywouldcomplicateevacuationduringemergencies, puttinglivesatrisk. Developinginahigh-riskarea likethisissimplynotprudent, asitwouldlikelyresultincomplexandpotentiallyhazardousevacuation scenarios. Historyhasshownwealreadydonothavesufficientandtimelyevacuationroutesinthearea. I can'tquiteunderstandwhythisalonewouldn'tbeenoughtodetourtheproject.

2. IncreasedTraffic, Noise, andPollution: Theproposeddevelopmentwouldsignificantlyincreasetrafficon SantaAnaCanyonRoad, directlyaffectingfamilieswholivealongorneartheroute. Currently, thenoiseand smogfromthenearby91Freewayalreadyimpactresidents, andthisadditionaltrafficburdenwouldexacerbate theissue, diminishingourcommunity’squalityoflife. Ourneighborhoodscannotenduretheworsening conditionsthatthisdevelopmentwouldimpose.

3. DestructionofLocalWildlifeHabitat: TheDeerCanyonareaishometovariouswildlifespecies, whose habitatswouldbedestroyedbythisspeculativeproject. Thisnaturalareaservesasavitalsanctuaryforthese species, andtheproposeddevelopmentwouldresultintheirreversiblelossofbiodiversityanddisruptthe ecologicalbalanceoftheregion.

4. LossofVegetationBenefitingAirQuality: ThevegetationinDeerCanyonplaysanessentialroleinfiltering theair, helpingmitigatesmogfromthe91Freeway. Whenfreewaycongestionincreases, manyvehicles, includingheavytrucks, exitonImperialHighwayandtakethewindingroutethroughourareatobypasstraffic, addingevenmorepollution. Removingthisvegetationwouldhavedirect, adverseeffectsonairqualityfor AnaheimHillsresidents.

Inlightoftheseimportantandrelativeconcerns, IurgetheCityCounciltoreconsidertheDeerCanyon apartmentproject. Thelong-termimpactsoftheabovepointsshouldbeprioritizedoverspeculativerealestate interests. Ratherthancontributetooverdevelopmentinasensitivearea, IhopetheCouncilwillfocuson sustainable, well-consideredsolutionsthatgenuinelyaddressthehousingcrisiswithoutcompromisingthe integrityofourcommunity.
1 Thankyouforconsideringthesecomments. Iappreciateyourcommitmenttolisteningtothevoicesof Anaheimresidents.

Sincerely,
ShaneHendrickson
Anaheim, Ca92808
2 Susana Barrios
From: C. Reveles <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, AM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toDeerCanyon Preserve Development Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
Ihopethismessagefindsyouwell. IamaresidentofAnaheimHillsandIamwritingtoexpressmystrong oppositiontotheproposeddevelopmentbytheSaltProjectinDeerCanyonPreserve. Thisuntouched areaisavitalhabitatformanyanimalsandapreciousnaturalresourceforourcommunity. Ourareais pronetofires, andthesafetyofcurrentresidentsshouldbeatoppriority.

Introducinganapartmentcomplextothisregionwouldincreasetheriskandpotentially leadto dangerous situations. Additionally, theargumentthatthisdevelopmentwillbringjobstoourcityisnot compelling. Ourcitydoesnothaveashortageofjobs, andthisprojectcouldleadtoincreasedcrimeand trafficissues, similartothoseseenintheAnaheimvicinity.

Iurgeyoutoconsiderthelong-termimpactsonourcommunityandenvironment beforeapprovingthis project. PreservingDeerCanyonPreserveisessentialformaintaining thesafety, beauty, andqualityof lifeinAnaheimHills.

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.

Sincerely,
ChristinaReveles
AnaheimHillsResident
1 Susana Barrios
From: Alison Hooker <intothewildoctrailrun@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon_inoppostion
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomitMayConcern,
IamaresidentofAnaheimHillsandIaminoppositionofbuilding500apartmentsinDeerCanyon.

Thisdevelopment wouldendanger thewildlife, poseasubstantial firethreattosurrounding communities, andwouldforever change thelandscape andflowoftraffic inourcommunity.

Pleasekeepourgreenspace.

Pleaseconsiderthesafetyofresidentsincaseofevacuationduetofireandearthquakes.

PleaseconsiderworseningtrafficonSantaAnaCanyon.

HappyTrails,
AlisonandMikeHooker
www.intothewildoctrailrun.com
1 Susana Barrios
From: SHANNON MMCCHURCH < smcchurch@sbcglobal. net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTproject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
MynameisShannonMcChurch. IlivedthefirsthalfofmylifeinAnaheim, westofthe57freeway. Ihavelivedmostof myadultlifeinAnaheimHills. Ihavebeenanelementary schoolteacherfor30years. Thefirsthalfofmycareerwas withAnaheimCitySchoolDistrict. ItaughtatAdelaidePrice, Gauer, Guinn, andJuarezElementarySchools. Thepast 16yearsIhavebeenteaching4thgradewithat I'm
luckytoliverightaroundthecornerfrommywork.

IloveAnaheim. ThebeautifulanduniquefeaturesofAnaheimareillustratedinthevastdiversitybetweenAnaheimand AnaheimHills. Eachisrichinculturaldiversity. Theculturesdiffer, butbothareasarebeautifulbecauseofthemixof residents. Someissuesandproblemsarethesame, butsomearedrasticallydifferent. The "Hills" aresometimesviewed asthe "richpeople" area. IknowthisbecauseasastudentatKatellaHighSchool, Irememberpokingfunattherichhills residents. Problems, however, existeverywhere. Peoplestrugglewithhealth, crime, mentalillness, abuse, neglect.....in everyzipcode.

IthinkthebiggestdifferencethatIhaveexperiencedwithAnaheimisthephysicalgeography. IremembertheSantaAna windsgrowingup, buttheyarenothingliketheSantaAnawindsatthetopofthehilloffWeirCanyon. Ifyouhavenever spentmultiplenightsinahomeinAnaheimHillsduringSantaAnawinds, yousimplycannotunderstandtheirpower. I inviteyoutocometomyhomethenexttimethewindskickup. Please, youarewelcome.

ImentionallofthisbecauseIwanttotellyouaboutthescariestdayofmylife. Itwasthedayofthewildfirein2017. I wasatworkatRunningSpringsElementary. MysonwasinFirstGradeattheschool. Thewindswere "normal-bad" that morning, buttheyquicklystartedtoreallygetbad. Iremembertellingmyprincipalinpassing (hewasn'tfromtheareaand itwashisfirstyear), thatitwasfine....thewindsalwaysgotbadlikethat. Withinanhourafterthatconversation theskyto theeastwasblackfromanapproachingwildfire. Itwaslikeanend-of-the-worldwarmovie. Theskyjustacrossfromthe schoolwasnothingshortofominous. Busesstartingcomingimmediately, asitwasclearthatweneededtoevacuatethe entireschool. Youhavenoideawhatitwasliketohaveparentsrunninguptheschool, crying, grabbingtheirchildrenin theirarmsandrunning...allasweweretryingtogetbusesloadedandoutofthearea. Teacherslefteverything there...carsintheparkinglotandmanylefttheirpetsandhomesthatareintheimmediatearea.

Ivividlyrememberbeingonthebus, headingtowardstheevacuationsiteatCanyonHighSchool. Ourbuswentup SerranobecauseothersthatwentdowntoImperialwerestuckinhorrifictraffic. Wedidn'tevengettoCanyonRimPark andwewerestuckintrafficonthebus. Literallylessthan50feetaway, aswewerestoppedontheroad, theentire hillsidewasonfire....fullredflames! Luckilywesatforjustafewminutesbeforeapolicecarcametoescortuspastthe stoppedtraffic. Doyouhaveanyideawhatthatcouldbelike? AsIsattherewithabusloadofyoung, terrified, children, I thoughtwecouldactuallydiewhilesittingonthebus. Please, trytoimaginethis. Youhaveheardtheunimaginable storiesoftragedyfromMaui......thisisaREALandplausiblethreattoAnaheimHills. Ifyoudon'tlivehereinthehills, I'm beggingyoutounderstandthattheabilitytoleaveinanemergency issoincrediblydifficult. The91freewayoverflow reachestoallcornersofAnaheimHills, aspeopleusenavigationtoavoidthefreewayasfarasWeirCanyon. Again, you arewelcometostaywithmeandmyfamily. IwilltakeyoudownSantaAnaCanyonasIdropmysonoffatElRancho MiddleSchoolandbacktowork. ThenbacktoCanyonHighSchoolanddowntoImperialtotakecareofanelderly parent. ThebackandforthdownSantaAnaCanyonisadailywayoflifeforeveryonelivinghere. Itisauniquedriving situation, tosaytheleast.
1 SonowIgettomyrealrequest. PleaseconsidereverythingI'veexplainedasyoudecidethefateoftheDeerCanyon Project. Allthoseaddedresidentswilladdtothepotentialofthenexttragedy. Iknowyouhavealottothinkabout, but don'tforgetyourfellowAnaheimresidentshereinthehills. Weallwantthesamebasicthingsinlife. Happiness, love, andthesafetytoliveourliveswithfamilyandfriends. Morepeopleinthiswildfirearea, thatisalreadyovercrowdedwith 91freewayoverflowonadailybasis, willonlyadddangertoourlives.

Youarewelcometovisitmyhomeormyplaceofwork. I'dbehappytopointoutmyneighborshomesthathaveburned downinpastwildfires. Iknowyouarenotcallous, butIjustdon'tthinkyoureallyknowwhatit'slike. Icanshowyou, if youwilltakethetimetosee.
2 Susana Barrios
From: brianmcgee@roadrunner. com
Sent: AM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] HillsPreserve Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

IamwritingtodaytovoicemystrongoppositiontotheproposedSALTDevelopmentHills Project.

IhavelivedintheDeerCanyonareafor30years, intheBelsometdevelopment. Priorto thatIlivedinYorbaLindasince1976, soI’mquitefamiliarwiththearea.

Iunderstandtheneedformorehousing, however, thisisNOTthelocationinwhichtodo that.

Mygraveconcernisthepromptevacuationofthearearesidentsforwhenawildre occurs. IremembertheFreewayComplexFireof2008, asmyfamilysatingridlocktra?ic asweattemptedtoevacuate. ItliterallytookusovertwohourstomakeittoLakeview Ave! ItwastheexactsamescenariowiththeCanyon2reof2017. Weweresitting ducks. Thankfully, wedidn’tsuccumblikethepoorsoulsinParadiseorLahaina. Andas youknow, theareapopulationhasonlygrownsincethen, howeverthesupporting transportationinfrastructurehasremainedthesame. Itisirresponsibletoadda500+ housing unitcomplex (nottomention theadditional businesses andsupport drivers).

SantaAnaCanyonisanarrowpassagewayborderedonthenorthbyYorbaLindaandthe southbyAnaheimHills. Thehomes (ontheAHside) extendtothe241. Whenwehavea SantaAnawindevent, itabsolutelycomeshowlingthroughthecanyon. Literalhurricane speedwinds. TheproblemcomeswhenareoccursoutinCoronaattheeasternendof thecanyon. Thedrywindscarrytheburningembersmiles. Literalmiles. Andthat's wherethecommunitiesofYorbaLindaandAnaheimHillsareindanger. Weevacuate west, awayfromtheames. ThereareonlytwomajorcorridorsinAHthatgothroughthe canyon, the91freewayandSantaAnaCanyonRoad. Thesecurrentlyareinadequateto handletheneeds. Addinga "dense" housingprojectrightinthechokepointofthe canyonexacerbatesthealreadygridlockconditions.
1 Yourowncitysta? recommendsagainstrezoningtheseparcels. TheFiredepartment recommendsagainstrezoningtheseparcels. Thepolicedepartmentrecommends againstrezoningtheseparcels.

Ihavehadfamilymembersdieinahousere. Youcannotimaginethehorror. Pleasedo notapprovetherezoningofthisland.

Sincerely,
BrianMcGee
Anaheim, CA92808
2 Susana Barrios
From: jaycook <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] oppose thedeercanyon apartment complex proposed foranaheim hills.

Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil,
Iamwritingtoexpressmyseriousconcernsregardingtheproposed498-unitDeerCanyonapartment complexinAnaheimHills. WhileIrecognizetheneedtoaddressSouthernCalifornia’shousing challenges, thisparticulardevelopmentonthe76-acrewildernessareaoffSantaAnaCanyonRoad raisesseveralcriticalissuesthatwouldnegativelyimpactourcommunityandenvironment.

1. IncreasedTraffic, Noise, andPollution: Theproposeddevelopmentwouldsignificantlyincreasetraffic onSantaAnaCanyonRoad, directlyaffectingfamilieswholivealongorneartheroute. Currently, the noiseandsmogfromthenearby91Freewayalreadyimpactresidents, andthisadditionaltrafficburden wouldexacerbatetheissue, diminishingourcommunity’squalityoflife. Ourneighborhoods cannot enduretheworseningconditionsthatthisdevelopmentwouldimpose.

2. DestructionofLocalWildlifeHabitat: TheDeerCanyonareaishometovariouswildlifespecies, whose habitatswouldbedestroyedbythisspeculativeproject. Thisnaturalareaservesasavitalsanctuaryfor thesespecies, andtheproposeddevelopmentwouldresultintheirreversiblelossofbiodiversityand disrupttheecologicalbalanceoftheregion.

3. LossofVegetationBenefitingAirQuality: ThevegetationinDeerCanyonplaysanessentialrolein filteringtheair, helpingmitigatesmogfromthe91Freeway. Whenfreewaycongestionincreases, many vehicles, includingheavytrucks, exitonImperialHighwayandtakethewindingroutethroughourareato bypasstraffic, addingevenmorepollution. Removingthisvegetationwouldhavedirect, adverseeffects onairqualityforAnaheimHillsresidents.

4. IncreasedSafetyRisksinaHigh-RiskZone: Addingnearly500unitsinAnaheimHillsraisesserious safetyconcerns. AnaheimHillsisathighriskforwildfires, andtheincreasedpopulationdensitywould complicateevacuationduringemergencies, puttinglivesatrisk. Developinginahigh-riskarealikethisis simplynotprudent, asitwouldlikelyresultincomplexandpotentiallyhazardousevacuationscenarios.

Inlightoftheseconcerns, IurgetheCityCounciltoreconsidertheDeerCanyonapartmentproject. The long-termimpactsontraffic, environmental stability, airquality, andresidentsafetyinAnaheimHills shouldbeprioritizedoverspeculativerealestateinterests. Ratherthancontributetooverdevelopment in asensitivearea, IhopetheCouncilwillfocusonsustainable, well-consideredsolutionsthatgenuinely addressthehousingcrisiswithoutcompromising theintegrityofourcommunity. 1 Thankyouforconsideringthesecomments. Iappreciateyourcommitmenttolisteningtothevoicesof Anaheimresidents.

Sincerely,
jaycook
anaheim, ca92807
2 Susana Barrios
From: Annesha Basu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Thoughts onDeerCanyon Project fromEastAnaheim Resident Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
Iamwriting toexpress mygraveconcerns abouttheproposed development inDeerCanyon. I understand thatallcitiesinCalifornia areunderpressure tocreate additional housing. Likemany people inthisstate, Istruggle withthehighcostoflivinghere. Iamsympathetic tothosewhocannot afforddecent housing. However, weshould notattempt toalleviate thisproblem bysacrificing the safetyofcurrentresidents. Ourroads cannot accommodate the1,000carsthatSALTestimates will beadded toourstreets should youapprove thisproject. Ittookme40minutes todrive5miles today fromtheintersection ofLaPalma andImperial Highway tomyhomenearWeirCanyon andSerrano.

Ishould mention thatthetraffic todaywastypicalofmostdays. Creating morecongestion onroads already overwhelmed withroutine traffic seemsunwise, especially giventhehighriskoffiresinthis area, ariskunderscored bytheincreasing number ofinsurance companies refusing toofferfire insurance toresidents here.
th Iattended thepublichearing onSeptember 30 andwasappalled atthePlanning Commission’s decision toapprove theproject despite thefireandpolicedepartment’sopposition. Iwasalso surprised byhowreadily theCommission accepted theresults ofstudies commissioned bySALT. No onementioned thattherehadbeennoindependent review oftheirtraffic study. Should wetakeitasa factthattheadditional carswilladdamere24minutes toevacuation times? Evenassuming the traffic study isasaccurate aspossible, thefirechiefsaidthatsuchstudies represent idealized models andthatactual evacuations arealways morechaotic andlengthier thananticipated. Inmattersof public safety, thefireandpolicedepartments areconsidered experts. Whyarewenotheeding the experts? Wecannot claimtosupport theirmission toprotectourcommunity andundercut theirefforts atthesametime. Thechoice isyours, butweasacommunity willhavetopayforit, andnotjustwith people’slives. ThestateofHawaii andMauiCounty werebothamong theco-defendants intheMaui wildfire lawsuits. Thisisnotafinancialriskthatanyone should bewilling totakeon.

Thedeveloper’spreposterous plantohaveresidents ofthenewbuilding shelterinplaceortoallow otherneighborhoods toevacuate firstwouldbeimpossible toenforce. Theirclaims thattheproposed project willimprove firesafetyandenhance thearea’snatural beauty arealsoabsurd. Should we mowdownandpaveoverevery natural habitat insouthern California toreduce fires? Oneofthebest 1 thingswecandotopreserve thebeauty ofthisgreatstateistoleaveasmanyhabitats aspossible alone. DidyouknowthatCalifornia ishometomorespecies ofplantsandanimals thananyother stateinthiscountry andisconsidered aglobal biodiversity hotspot? Anddidyouknowthatweare livinginthemiddle ofthesixthmassextinction? Natural phenomena caused previous extinction events, butthecurrent oneisdrivenbyhuman activity. Populations ofnative species, especially birds andinsects, aredeclining atalarming ratesduetohabitat loss. Evenifenvironmental issues donot moveyou, please remember thatwithout thesespecies, manyofourfoodcropsthatdepend onthese animals forpollination wouldalsodisappear. These mayseemlikeremote andabstract issues, but theyarenot. Ourchoices todaywillmakeadifference. TheCityofAnaheim hasshown interest in mitigating human environmental impacts; mostrecently, itrolledouttheorganic recycling program.

These programs areacommendable steptoward responsible environmental stewardship. Please keepgoingintherightdirection andvotetopreserve oneofthefewopenspacesAnaheim hasleft.

EveryEastAnaheim resident Ihavespoken withopposes thisproject, mainly duetosafety concerns.

Iworry formytwoyoung children andmyelderly parents. Please putyourconstituents’ safetyand long-termwell-beingfirst. Ourlivesaretrulyinyourhands.

Thank youforyourtime.

Sincerely,
Annesha Basu
2 Susana Barrios
From: lindamerrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Fwd: Lettertothecity
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

SentfrommyiPhone
Beginforwardedmessage:

From: LindaMerrell <
Date: August19, 2024at6:39:33PMPDT
To: lindamerrell <
Subject: Lettertothecity
Lettertothecity
Towhomthismayconcern
IamwritinginregardstotheIssueofthehorribleoutofplaceinappropriate apartment complexthatisbeingproposedforDeerCanyon!! Thisprojectissoabsurdlyinappropriate forourareaandwouldcausethepeopleofAnaheimHillsandsurroundingareashorrific Impositionontheirlivesandtheirwelfareandontheirproperty! Therewouldbeabsolutely noreasonatallforthistobeapprovedunlesssomeoneisgettingpaidoffasitisare puttingyourpositionstoservethepeopleofourcommunitysndmakenomistakeOur wholecommunitydoesnotwantthisprojectbuilt.! NotonlyisthisprojectaHazzardand dangertoeveryonewholivesuphereandhastofacethedangersofthefiresthatcome throughourarea.. Thatalreadywehavenosafeescaperoutesfortheamountofpeople thatalreadyexisthere, nosafeescaperoutesforthechildrenintheschools, waystogetto theirchildreninschooltoevacuateandforemergencyvehicles! ThepeopleofTheSalt Projectknewexactlywhattheywerebuyingwhentheyboughtit .. whichwas16houses! Otherthanpuregreed, thereisabsolutelynoreasonwhythatshouldbeturnedinto500+ houses! Becauseoftheextremefiredangertheycannotbecomecondosbecauseno insurancecompanywouldinsurethemsotheyhadtobecomeapartmentswithpeople thatwouldbecominginandoutmovinginandout! Therehasbeennoprovisionsfromthe SaltCompanytopayfortheextraburdenonourschools, Teachers , supplies, busesoron ourpoliceforextrapolicemen , extracars, extrasecurityonourstreets, wideningthemor comingupwithwaystomitigatetheextendedtraffic.! TheareaIliveinishalfacre 1 minimumwithsomerequire1acreminimum. Weboughtourhomesonthepremisethat thatwouldnotchange. Icouldnotgodowntothecityandgetthemtochangemyonehalf acretoallowmetoputfourhousesonit. Whatgivesyoutherighttoallowthemexceptions thatweasAnaheimresidentswhohavelivedhereandpaidtaxesfor50yearsDonot get?!!!! Thevalueofourpropertieswilldroptremendouslyaspeopleseethedreadlocks andnightmareoftryingtogodownthestreetthatweaccessourhousesfromeverysingle eveningandonweekends!! Iftheydidnotputalightwherethecomplexisgoing, those residentswouldnoteverbeabletopulloutonSantaAnaCanyonduringtraffichours!! This wouldmakeourlifeinAnaheimHillsandallofyourconstituents life‘sanightmare, and whatwoulditbenefittheCityOfAnaheim ??? OnlypeoplethataregettingpaidoffbySalt wouldbenefit! I’mafraidthatthecityisreallyopeningitselfandeachoftheboard memberstofuturelawsuitsthatwouldhurtthecityasthereissomanynumerousthings thataregoingtocomeup, especiallyifthereisafire!!
ThequestionhastobeWHYWHYwhywouldthepeoplethatwehaveelectedtoprotectus, their constituents voteforwhatisnot beneficialbutdetrimentaltous? WHYwouldanyofourelection officialsvoteforacompanyfromUtahThatisgoingtocomein , makealotofmoney , destroyourlives and Putusatextremerisk.. thathasnowaytobemitigated … noinfrastructure, nowaytobeableto handlealltheadditionalchildrenfrom600apartments, whichcouldbe2to3childrenperapartment, 2000+ carscominginandoutofthereeverysingledayandinthecaseofafirewherewealreadyhavea3 1/2hourevacuationtime.. it’sreallyunconscionable thatanyoneofourelectedofficialscouldvotefor thisandputusinthisprecariousanddangeroussituation!! Iemployyoualltovotenotoprotectyour ownAnaheimcitizens!! ThereisNoreasonwhythisisapprovedunlesssomeone isbenefitingfromthis andwhywouldanyofourofficialswantSalttobenefitfromitatthedetrimentoftheircitizens? Itmakes youaskWHYWHYwouldanyofourofficialsvoteforthisprojectagainsttheirownconstituents wants????? Thefiredangershavebeenmadeclear , thisCouncilhasbeenwarned .. Iimploreyouto pleasedowhatisrightforthepeopleofthiscitythatyourepresent!! LindaMerrell
Anaheimca92808
ThisvotefromeachofourboardmembersandourmayorshouldbeahardNo ! SentfrommyiPhone
2 Susana Barrios
From: Claudia Egkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IhavelivedinAnaheimHillssince1978andhaveexperienced threemajorres. Therein1982burneddowntoour backyardfence; however, wewereabletoevacuateexpediently travelingdownCanyonRimandFairmonttoSantaAna CanyonRd.

Theevacua?onsitua?onduringthe2017rewasacompletely dierent story. Because oftheincreased numberof housesthathavebeenbuiltinthearea, theextension ofSerranoStreettoWeirCanyon, andthecarsthatdrivethrough AnaheimHillstoreachtheIEandbeyondusingSerranoandSantaAnaCanyonroads, allstreetswerefacinggridlock. The rewasburninglessthan1/4milefrommyhome, andittookmeandmygrandchildren over11/5hourstogettoasafe loca?on. SantaAnaCanyonRdwasimpassable. Iwaspetried, needless tosay.

Pleaseconsider mysafetyconcernsandthoseoftheredepartment, thepolicedepartment, andallotherresidentsof EastAnaheimwhenyoumakeadecisiontobuildthisDeerCanyon project.

Pleasereplytomethatyou’vereceivedandreadthismessage.

ClaudiaEgkan
SentfrommyiPhone
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Brooke Friesen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Urgent Opposition toDeerCanyon Preserve Development Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
Iamwri?ngasaconcerned residentofAnaheimHillstovoicemystrongopposi?ontotheproposed development bythe SaltProjectinDeerCanyonPreserve. Thisarea, asanctuary forwildlifeandatreasured naturalresource, mustremain untouched.

SouthernCalifornia’shistorywithwildresisastarkreminderoftherisksweface. Developing inthisre-pronearea wouldendangerourcommunity’ssafety. Thepursuitofnancialgaincannottakeprecedence overthewell-beingofour residents. Ourcitydoesnotlackjobopportuni?es, andthisprojectcouldexacerbate crimeandtracissues, similarto thoseinAnaheim.

Iurgeyoutopriori?zethesafetyandqualityoflifeofAnaheimHillsresidentsbypreserving DeerCanyonPreserve.

Thankyouforconsidering myurgentrequest.

Sincerely,
BrookeFriesen
AnaheimHillsResident
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Jennifer Marcoly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Goodmorning,
IamwritingtodayasaconcernedmemberoftheAnaheimHillscommunity.

WhileIlovethelookoftheplanneddevelopmentforDeerCanyon, Idonotandcannotsupportthis projectduetosafetyconcerns.

IhavelivedinAnaheimHillsforalmost30yearsandhaveexperiencedincreasingtrafficandover crowdingofcarscuttingthroughtheneighborhoods togetaroundfreewaytraffic, aswellasavoiding trafficonLaPalmaandSantaAnaCanyon. Fridaysareespeciallyfrustratinganddangeroustoourkids thatarewalkinghomefromschoolorridingtheirbikesthroughtheneighborhood.

TheparkinglotatCanyonHighSchoolalone, cannotaccommodate thestudentpopulationitcurrently has. OnTuesdays, streetsweepingdays, thereisnoplacefortheoverflowofstudentstogo. Iknowthe projectisnot “designed” forfamilies, butthatisunrealistictothinktherewillbenoadditionalfamilies livingthere.

Onaregularbasis, tryingtoquicklypickupkidsfromschoolandmakeittoanappointmentisnearly impossible, inarealisticamountoftime. Instead, Ihavetotakemystudentoutofclassearlyortake themlate, toavoidmissingextrahoursinmyownworkdayastoavoidtheadditionalparkinglottrafficas wellasthetrafficonlocalroadsfromthefreewayoverflow. Thisisalsoresultinginlossofmoneyforthe schoolswhenthestudentsaremissingclasses.

Schooltrafficaside, myrealfearstemsfromourlackofescaperoutesinanemergency. Livinghere throughtheevacuations in2008and2017, wasveryscary. Wefelttrappedandscared! The consequencesofmovingadditionalhousingandcarsintoanunderdeveloped andunprepared infrastructure isirresponsibleandnegligible.

Pleaseconsidermoreresearchandsolutionsinpreparationforemergencies beforeaddingadditional fueltothefire.” Pleasetakeintoaccounttheneighborsthathavelivedhere, inourlittlecommunity, for decades. Showusyouarearesponsibledeveloperandthatyouarededicatedtohavingthebestinterest indefendingusthatliveherenow. Weloveourcommunityandmustfeelsafeinourhomes! Sincerely,
1 JenniferMarcoly
AnaheimHills, CA92808
2 Susana Barrios
From: IrelaGarcia <irelagarcia@roadrunner. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Opposition
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

TotheAnaheimCityCouncilmembers,
MyfamilyandIareinopposi?ontotheconstruc?onofthe498apartments unitsthatareplannedfortheDeercanyon area. Likemanyofourneighborsweareconcerned abouttheenvironmental impactitwillcause.

Thankyou,
GarciaFamily
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: KatyaDiersing <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Protect OurCommunity fromUnsafe Development Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHills, IamdeeplyconcernedabouttheproposeddevelopmentinDeer CanyonPreservebytheSaltProject. Thisuntouchedareaishometomanyanimalsandisavital partofourcommunity’snaturalbeauty.

GivenSouthernCalifornia’shistorywithdevastatingwildfires, developinginthisareaposes significantriskstooursafety. Itiscrucialthatweputthesafetyofourresidentsabovefinancial interests. Ourcommunitydoesnotneedmorejobsattheexpenseofincreasedcrimeandtraffic, reminiscentofAnaheim’sissues.

Pleaseconsiderthelong-termimplicationsandprioritizethepreservationofDeerCanyon Preserveforthewell-beingofAnaheimHillsresidents.

Sincerely,
KatyaDiersing
AnaheimHillsResident
1 Susana Barrios
From: Douglas Elliott <douglaselliott497@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Concern forSaltDevelopment
Attachments: Concern fortheSALTDevelopment.pdf
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

PleaseconsideranovoteonSALT. AttachedisaletterofmyconcernsforSALT.

Thanks DouglasElliott
1 Susana Barrios
From: AmyChiusolo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Cc: Anthony Chiusolo
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NODeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomitMayConcern,
Please reconsider youryesvotefortheSALTproject. Adding thisadditional housing development willbehorrible forourcommunity. Beingaresident ofAnaheim Hillsforthepast26years, wehave seentrafficbecome anightmare. Whenwehadtoevacuate forthefirein2017, itwasthescariest dayofmylife. Beingathome withmy2dogsand3tortoises andhaving ahelicopter flyovermy house andannounce toleaveimmediately wasterrifying. Ipacked asmany thingsasIcouldand loaded myanimals upinthecar. AsIdrovedownSantaAnaCanyon itwasaslowcrawlandallI couldseewassmoke andflames inmyrearview mirror. Driving awayfrommyhomeandnot knowing ifitwouldstillbetherewassuchasadastressful situation formeandmyfamily. Ifanother majorfirecomes through ourarea, having thishugeSALTdevelopment willonlyaddtothechaos anddifficulty ofhavingtoevacuate. Many livescouldbelost aswellashomes. Ifeelitisselfishfor thecouncil members ofAnaheim whoarevoting yestotheproject. Ahugeconflict ofinterest with manyofyouandthedeveloper isalsoaredfag. Greed neverdoesanyone anygood. Please dothe rightthingandthinkaboutthepeople, wildlife, community, andqualityoflifefortheindividuals who willbeimpacted bythisreckless decision.

Sincerely,
AmyChiusolo
Anaheim
1 Susana Barrios
From: Nicole Jelinek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Apartments
Attachments: 20240621_150031.jpg; 20240409_164727.jpg
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
IamalifelongresidentofAnaheimHills, Iliveintheneighborhoods surroundingRunningSprings ElementaryoffWeirCanyon. I'mwritingthistovoicemydisapprovalforthenearly500unitapartment complexthatisattemptingtobebuiltinDeerCanyon.

I'veliveinAnaheimHillsmywholelife, attendingRunningSpringselementarymyselfasachild, going ontobothElRanchoandCanyonHighSchoolaswell, Iamveryawareoftheculturesurroundingthis areaandhowtheseapartmentswillimpactourcommunityfortheworse.

I'vealsoworkedasasubstituteteacherthroughoutOUSD, I'veseenhowcrowdedtheclassroomsare areatmyoldschools, aswellasothersinthesurroundingarea. Nosolutionhasbeenprovidedto addresstheconcernsofoverimpactedclassrooms.

Ontopofthat, theconsistenttrafficthathasalreadyexpandedthroughmyneighborhoodshasalready affectedmylifenegatively. QuickerrandstoSaviRanchwheremydoctorsofficeislocatednowturninto along, overbearingexperienceasIfightagainstthetrafficcreatedbyeveryoneusingSerranoandWeiras freewaybypass. AclosefriendwholivesoffLarkwood, aresidentalstreetparalleltoWeirthatisoften crowdedwithtrafficisunabletoleaveherhomeduetocarsblockingthestreetallinanattempttoget backontothe91.

Thetrafficneverleaves, asimplefenderbenderonthefreewaycancausetrafficupWeirandSerrano, as wellasSantaAnaCanyon, evenduringnon-peaktraffictimes. The91bottleneckishorribleandas someonewholivesinthiszone, theseapartmentswillonlyaddtothisproblemanddonothingto addressthelargerissuesthataffectourcommunity.

Fireconcernsareobviouslyanissueasmyneighborhood has3exitstoleavethisareaincaseofafire.

Serrano, SantaAnaCanyon, andWeirCanyon. All3oftheseroadsaresoheavilyaffectedbytraffic, the fearsofafirepreventingusfromleavingareaverypossiblereality. Myneighborhood stillhasthescarsof theburntdownhousesfromthe2017fires. Evenallthistimelaterourneighborhood hasyettofully recover.
1 IveattachedtwophotosoftrafficthatI'veexperienced dealingwith. ThefirsttakenApril9that4:47pmas Iwascomingbackfrommydoctorsoffice. Thattrafficcausedmyusual20minuteerrandtoturninto40 minutes, ifnotmore. ThesecondisfromJune21st, at3pm, showingthesametrafficdownWeirthat preventspeopleinmyneighborhood fromgoingout, allsotheycansaveafewminutesoftrafficoffthe freeway. Youcanseethecomparison ofnormaltrafficontheoppositesideoftheseroadsincomparison tothebackup
Keepinmindthesepicturesarerepresentative ofacommonoccurrence, whileImightonlyhave providedtwo, thisissomethingIdealwithdaily.

Iamayoungvoter, mypeersmyageandIareallwatchingthisissuetoseeifourcitycouncilwilldefend usandhearourconcernsortryto 'stickittothehills' astheplanningcommissiondid. Pleaselistento theresidents, thefirecheif, andthepolicewhoallvoicedtheirconcernsagainsttheseapartments. 2 Susana Barrios
From: Carolyn Baker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Strongly Opposed totheDeerCanyon Project Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

AsanAnaheim HillsresidentIamstronglyopposedtotheDeerCanyonProject. Thisisplacingaddi?onalrerisktoour community astheAnaheimFireChiefclearlystated. Iamextremely disappointed thatthePlanningCommission approved thistomoveforwardwithalltheevidenceandopposi?onthatwaspresented forthisproject.

CarolynBaker
Anaheim CA92808
1 Susana Barrios
From: ShellyR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Theresa Bass
Cc: PublicComment; Norma C. Kurtz; JoseDiaz; CarlosA. Leon; Natalie Rubalcava; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Nicholas J. Taylor
Subject: Re: \[EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project - PublicComment PageNotWorking Properly Attachments: Screenshot_20241029_115559_Chrome.jpg; Screenshot_20241029_091724 Facebook.jpg
Somepeoplewhoreceivedthismessagedon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant HiTheresa,
Thankyouforthequickresponse & fixingtheissuetoensureallpubliccommentsregardingtheDeer Canyonproposalareaccuratelybeingcountedandreceived. Priortosendingmyemailbelow, thepublic commentswebsitelistedatotalof (31) entriesandhasstayedatthatnumberforthepastfewdays. I understandthattheemailswereredactedtocovernamestoprotectprivateinformation; however, Ihad openedallemailentriesandmyfirstemailwasnotinthere. Uponreceiptofyouremail, Iseethatthe Cityhasfixedtheissueandisnowcurrentlyrepresenting (320) emailedcommentsshowninthe screenshotbelow. I'vealsoreattachedmyoriginalscreenshotfrommyfirstemailfromresidentsstating thattheiremailswerenotbeingreceivedforcontinuitypurposes. Thankyouagainforyourswiftaction.

Sincerely,
ShellyRobbins
OnTue, Oct29, 2024, 10:42AMTheresaBass <[email protected]> wrote:

HelloMs. Robbins,
Thankyouforyouremail. Iwantedtoaddressanyconcernsthecommunitymayhavewithregardtothepublic commentsystem. Therearenoissueswiththesystem.

Publiccommentsareredactedofanypersonalcontactinformation (i.e. address, phonenumber, email) and preparedfordistributiontotheCityCouncil. Thepubliccommentsystemismonitoredandpostingswillbemade throughouttheday. Currentlythewebsitereflectsallpubliccommentsreceivedasof9:30amthismorning, October29.

Ifyouhaveanyquestions, pleasedonothesitatetocontactme.
1 Thankyou,
Theresa
TheresaBass, CMC
CityClerk
City ofAnaheim
200S. Anaheim Blvd. #217
Anaheim, CA92805
Email: tbass@anaheim. net
Phone: (714) 765-5166 | Fax: (714) 765-4105
From: ShellyR <
Sent: Tuesday, October29, 20249:22AM
To: PublicComment <publiccomment@anaheim. net>
Cc: NormaC. Kurtz <[email protected]>; JoseDiaz <[email protected]>; CarlosA. Leon <[email protected]>; NatalieRubalcava <[email protected]>; StephenFaessel <[email protected]>; NatalieMeeks [email protected]>; Nicholas J. Taylor <[email protected]> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyonProject - PublicCommentPageNotWorkingProperly Somepeoplewhoreceivedthismessagedon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
2 Iamsendinganemailandcc'ingallCityCouncilMembersandNickTaylorinanattempttoletyouknow aboutanissuewiththepubliccommentsitenotreflectingallofthelettersbeingsentin. Myselfand severalotherresidentshaveconfirmedthattheydonotseetheiremailslistedonthewebsite, whichisa hugeconcernifourvoicesaren'tbeingheardduetoatechnicalglitchinthesystem. Thisprovidesan inaccurateviewofcurrentthoughtsregardingthisproject. Belowisascreenshotofjustoneofthe discussionsontheAnaheimHillsBuzzsurroundingthepubliccommentsandemailsnotbeing received.
3 Susana Barrios
From: ZackCollie <zacksdroneservice@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Traffic
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Herearehyper-lapsevideosoftrafficgettingonthe91freewayinImperialandLaPalmaandthe91by SaviRanch
The
linke
d
imag
e HyperlapseAnaheimHillsTraffic.mov cann
ot …
The
linke
d
imag
e
cann Imperialfwytraffic.mov ot …
The
linke
d
imag
e SunsetHyperlapse .mov cann
ot …
1 Susana Barrios
From: Chrystal Mayhugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 202412:08PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Preserve DeerCanyon!!!
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom com. Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

PleaseDONOTallowtheapartment complexoranyotherbuildingbebuiltatDeerCanyon. Allresidents whoresidehereareopposedtothisprojectbeingbuilt. AnaheimHillsdoesnotneedanapartment complex.

ConcernedResident,
ChrystalMayhugh
1 Susana Barrios
From: Crystal Lantello <cmethod2000@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Protect OurCommunity fromUnsafe Development Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHills, Iamdeeplyconcerned abouttheproposeddevelopment inDeerCanyonPreservebythe SaltProject. Thisuntouched areaishometomanyanimalsandisavitalpartofourcommunity’snaturalbeauty.

GivenSouthernCalifornia’shistorywithdevasta?ngwildres, developing inthisareaposessignicantriskstooursafety.

Itiscrucialthatweputthesafetyofourresidentsabovenancialinterests. Ourcommunity doesnotneedmoretracin analreadysaturated areaofthe91parking. Commuters onthe91freewayalreadyblocktracforresidentswholivein thearea. Goingameremiletothegrocerystorecantake30minutesintheeveningwiththe91freewaytrac. Adding addi?onalthousandhomeswillincreasetracinanareahardtonavigateinAnaheimHillsareaandincreases thesafety oftheareawhenanemergency arises.

Pleaseconsiderthelong-termimplica?onsandpriori?zethepreserva?onofDeerCanyonPreserveforthewell-beingof AnaheimHillsresidents.

Sincerely,
CrystalLantello
AnaheimHillsResident
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Chrystal Mayhugh <chrystalmayhugh@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Fwd: Preserve DeerCanyon!!!
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

PleaseDONOTallowtheapartmentcomplexoranyotherbuildingbebuiltatDeerCanyon. Allresidents whoresidethereareopposedtothisbuildingbeingbuilt.

ChrystalMayhugh
1 Susana Barrios
From: Chrystal Mayhugh <chrystalmayhugh@hotmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] PleaseVoteAgainst HillsPreserve
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

PleaseDONOTallowtheapartment complexoranyotherbuildingbebuiltatDeerCanyon. Allresidents whoresidehereareopposedtothisbuildingbeingbuilt.
1 Susana Barrios
From: EricLoveng <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon housing project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhomitMayConcern,
IamwritingtostopthehousingprojectinDeerCanyon. AnaheimCA. HavinglivedinAnaheimHillsfor thepast17years, Ihaveseentrafficworseningtothepointofgridlockduringrushhoureveryday. When wehadtoevaluateduringthefires, trafficwascompletelystopped. Thankfullythefiredivertedaroundus thankstofirefightersandaircraft. Hadthefireshifted, Ifearmanywouldbedeadduetotraffic.

WeCannotaffordtoincreasethehousingpopulationwithoutputtingeveryoneatriskduring emergencies. Itwouldbecatastrophic.

EricLoveng
Anaheim,CA92808
1 Susana Barrios
From: Diersing, Katya <kdiersing@orangeusd. org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 202412:14PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Protest OurCommunity fromUnsafe Development Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHills, Iamdeeplyconcernedaboutthe
proposeddevelopmentinDeerCanyonPreservebytheSalt
Project. Thisuntouchedareaishometomanyanimalsandisavital partofourcommunity’snaturalbeauty.

GivenSouthernCalifornia’shistorywithdevastatingwildfires, developinginthisareaposessignificantriskstooursafety. Itis crucialthatweputthesafetyofourresidentsabovefinancial
interests. Ourcommunitydoesnotneedmorejobsattheexpense
ofincreasedcrimeandtraffic, reminiscentofAnaheim’sissues.

Pleaseconsiderthelong-termimplicationsandprioritizethe
preservationofDeerCanyonPreserveforthewell-beingof
AnaheimHillsresidents.

Sincerely,
Kathy
AnaheimHillsResident
GetOutlookforiOS
1 Susana Barrios
From: JohnBartsch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Apartment project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

I'mreachingouttovoicemyopinionagainsttheDeerCanyon (SALT) projectinAnaheimHills. Thetraffic onSantaAnaCanyonRoadhasalreadybecomeunbearableandthisprojectwillonlymakeitworse.

Evacuatingduringafirewillbeonlythatmuchmoredifficultshouldyoulistentothedeveloper, SALT.

PleaselistentoyourconstituentsandneighborsinAnaheimratherthananoutofstatedeveloperwho onlyisinterestedinmakingmoneyattheexpenseoftheAnaheimHillsNeighborhoods. PleasevoteNo.

JohnR. BartschAnaheim, CA
1 Susana Barrios
From: Michelle MacDonald <mikalamalia22@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyonProject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncilmembers,
IamwritingtoformallyregistermyoppositiontotheDeerCanyonapartmentproject.

LivingincloseproximitytoSantaAnaCanyon, Iamdeeplytroubledbythepotential safetyrisksanddiminishedqualityoflifethisdevelopmentwouldbring, andIimplore youtoprioritizeourcommunity'sinterests.

ItisdeeplytroublingthatonSeptember30thPlanningCommissionwentagainstthe recommendationoftheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissionStaff, AnaheimFire Department, AnaheimPoliceDepartment, andvotedinfavoroftheSaltDevelopment ProjectmovingforwardthisissuetotheCityCouncilforfinalreviewandavote.

Iurgeyoutoconsiderthecommunity’sinterestinOPPOSINGthisproject.

PLEASEVOTEAGAINSTtheproposedhighriseapartmentbuildingandthe commercialstructuresinDeerCanyon.

Thankyouforyourtime,
MichelleMacDonald
1 Susana Barrios
From: talatahmed <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NotoDeercanyon Anaheim HillsProposed housing project ! Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hi, WeliveinAnaheimhills, (1)thetrafficon91EtowardsCoronaisalwaysbumpertobumperafter2:30 pmsopeopleexitatimperialhwy andgoinsidethestreetsofAnaheimHillstoavoid91Etraffic especiallySantaAnacanyonRd, WeircanyonRdandNohlRanch. Thentheyagainjoin91E.

Driversgetcrazyandmostofthetimethereisanaccident.
2) andduringfireevacuationtherehavebeenchaosonroads.
1 Susana Barrios
From: GlendaBabbitt <glendababbitt@hotmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTProject - Item31
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

GoodAfternoonCouncilMembers,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHills, IamwritingtovoicemyoppositiontotheDeerCanyondevelopment. Iam askingyoutovote "No" onSALTDevelopment'srequestforanapprovalonitsGeneralPlanAmendment, etc. ThedevelopmentofthislandwillincreasetrafficalongSantaAnaCanyonandthesurrounding area.

Asaresidentofthisarea, Icurrentlyhavedifficultygettingtomyhomeafterworkduetothecongestion onastreetinmytractwhichcurrentlyisusedbycommutersasanalternativetoWeirCanyon. Wehave beenworkingwiththeCitytomitigatethissituationwithlittlesuccess. Inaddition, duringtheTriangle Fire, itwasdifficultandalmostimpossibletoevacuate. Addingthisdevelopmentwillonlydecreasethe standardoflivingandthesafetyoftheresidents.

Thankyou,
GlendaBabbitt
1 Susana Barrios
From: Charlie Felter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyonProject
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Pleasedon’tapprovethisprojectandcreatetracnightmares forallresidentsofAnaheimHills ! Thetracatweir canyonisalreadyterrible! The91freewaycan’thandlethetracalready! Don’tlettheterriblestateofCalifornia management controlourcity ! PleasestepandghtbacklikeHun?ngtonBeach! Votenoonthisproject!! SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Siobahn Haut <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Iwouldliketovoicemyopposi?ontothedeercanyonproject. Iamanac?vememberinthiscommunity boththrough serviceclubswhobenettheareaandwithotherlocalgroupswhobringvaluetothearea.

Thisprojectdoesnotmeettheneedsofthecommunity whichisaordablehousing.

Thegrouptryingtobuildispushingthroughideaswithoutfullydeveloping themorconsidering theconsequences.

Theenvironmental damagewithna?vespeciesandopenspaceforwildlifeissomethingwecannevergetback. Withthe orangeheightsprojectweareindangerofcon?nuingtolosespaces thatthecommunity valuesandisimportant. Ifthe citywasworkingonmoreenvironmental measures perhaps itwouldbalancebutwhentheycon?nuetofundfossilfuels andotherdestruc?onglobally, theyshouldprotectasmuchwildspaceaspossible.

Theinforma?onthatlocalunionsarealsobeinglobbiedtoshowuptoshowsupportbutaren’tgiventhefactsarejust bodiesfeelsunjust.

Thewildreriskofthisnewcommunity andtheissuewithevacua?onshouldbeenoughtodissuadethecouncilfrom approving thisproject.

Ourcommuni?esneedtoprotectwildlife.

Ourcommuni?esneedtobeabletoaordtolivehere.

Ourcommuni?esneedtobesafefrombeingplacedinharmsway.

Pleasedotherightthing, saynotomoredevelopment andmoneyatthecostofourcommunity.

Siobahnhaut
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: KristenKarpow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Nicholas J. Taylor; PublicComment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] 10/29CouncilMtgAgenda Item31: Please OPPOSE theHillsPreserve Project
Somepeoplewhoreceivedthismessagedon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

SendingagainwiththeCouncilMeetingAgendaItemnumberinthesubjectline, forclarification) Beginforwardedmessage:

Date: October29, 2024at11:04:59PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: PleaseOPPOSEtheHillsPreserve
Hello,
Iamwriting, asaresidentofAnaheimHills, tourgeyoutoOPPOSEtheproposaltoapprove theHillsPreserveProject. IamraisingmyfamilyhereinAnaheimHills, andIservethisvery communityasaCountyofOrangeemployee. AsaChieffortheOrangeCountyHealthCare Agency - EmergencyMedicalServicesDepartment, withexperienceworkingasan ER/TraumaRegisteredNurseinadenselypopulatedOCareafor10+ years, Iknowfirst handtherisksanddangersofincreasinghumanpopulationinanareathatdoesnothave theinfrastructure tosupportthis.

Myreasonsforurgingyoutoopposethisproposalareasfollows:

1. Unsafetrafficdelaysintheeventofamandatoryfireevacuation TheAnaheimHillscommunity isjustthat. Acommunityofneighborhoods built amongsmallhillswithasingleroadtoaccess/exitthoseneighborhood hills. My familyhaslivedherefor40+ years, andhasbeenthroughseveralmandatoryfire evacuations. Themostrecentevacuationsawvehicles, andthefamiliesinside them, stuckonthesesingleroadsforHOURSwhilefiresragedinthesurrounding canyons, hills, andgreenbelts - gettingcloserandcloser. TheHillsPreserve, with itsnearly500dwellingunits, willaddhundredsifnotover1000newvehiclestothe area. Thiswouldcauseadramatically increaseddelayinevacuationtimes, putting existingAnaheimHillsresidents’ andfamilies‘ livesatrisk.

OntheHillsPreserve’swebsiteFAQ, theirresponsetotheconcernofgridlockwas, ourdevelopmentheavilypromotesasustainableworkingenvironmentthat 1 reducestheneedforcommutingaltogether.” Firstofall, thereisnowaytheycan guaranteethatthemajorityoftheirrenterswillworkfromhome. Secondofall, this answerdoesNOTatalladdresstheconcernImentionedaboveintheeventofafire evacuation, withtheHillsPreservepotentiallyaddinghundredsofcarstoasmall communitywithsingleroadsthatalreadytakeHOURSforfireevacuationthe residentswealreadyhave.

2. Overcrowding oflocalschools
AnaheimHillsonlyhasONEpublicHighSchoolandONEpublicmiddleschoolfor allofitsresidents. ThepublicelementaryschoolsthatserveAnaheimHillsare alreadyovercrowdedaswell. MyhusbandhasbeenaschoolteacherwithOrange UnifiedSchoolDistrict (includingAnaheimHillspublicschools) forover10years, andwillbethefirsttosaythatourclassroomsareovercrowded. Mydaughter’s KindergartenclassinourlocalAnaheimHillselementaryschoollastschoolyear had30childreninit, whichherteacherhadtomanagewithoutanaide. I volunteeredregularlyintheclassroom, andwitnessedhowdifficultitwasforone teachertomaintainclassroommanagementandprovideadequateattentionto eachstudent. TheHillsPreserve, withitsnearly500units, hasthepotentialtoadd hundredsmorechildrentoouralreadycrowdedschoolsystem.

TheHillsPreserve’swebsiteFAQstates, inresponsetoconcernsonschool overcrowding, that “thisprojectwillhaveveryfewschool-agedchildren. Ourtarget demographic isyoung, workingprofessionalswithoutchildren.” Thisstatementis aninsulttoourcommunity’sintelligence, andpurposelydoesnotaddressthetrue concern. AccordingtoCaliforniaStatefairhousinglaws, housingproviders CANNOTdiscriminateagainstfamilieswithchildren. Assuch, thereisnorealistic waythatTheHillsPreservecanguaranteetheywon’toverburdenouralready crowdedpublicschoolsysteminAnaheimHills.

3. Disruptionofcommunityenvironment
Myhusband’sfamilychosetoraisehiminthesuburbsofAnaheimHillsfora reason. MyownfamilychosetoraisemeinthesuburbsofneighboringOrange Heightsforthesamereason. MyhusbandandIchosetoreturntoAnaheimHills fromamoredenselypopulatedarea) backin2018tostartafamily, alsoforthe samereason. Thereason? Aquiet, peaceful, safe, andfamily-orientedcommunity environment.

TheHillsPreserve, withits7STORYbuilding, willdisruptthisenvironmentby introducingnoiseandlightpollutionfromarooftopbar, bowlingalley, andother suchon-siteamenities. TheHillsPreserveclaimsthattheir “targetdemographic” is youngworkingprofessionalswithoutchildren. Establishedfamilieswithchildren arewhatenrichthiscommunity. Ifwewantedtoliveneararooftopbar, wewould havechosentoliveelsewhere. ThefamiliesofAnaheimHillswhoCURRENTLY reside, andhaveresidedinthiscommunityforyears, donotwantrooftopbarsor anytypeofurbandevelopmentnearwhereweareraisingourchildren. 2 Insummary, myfamilyandIarelong-termresidentsofAnaheimHillsandbegYOU, our representatives, tohearourvoices. TheHillsPreserveisUNSAFE, willcause OVERCROWDING ofbothroadsandschools, andwillDESTROYoursmallcommunity environment. PleasesupportthecurrentresidentsofAnaheimHills, andOPPOSEthe developmentofTheHillsPreserve.

Thankyouforyourtime.

Kindregards,
Kristen
3 Susana Barrios
From: Dorothy O'Neill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Stopthehillsproject
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Iopposethisproject. Havelivedhere30yearsandhaveseenenoughincrease intrac! SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: [email protected]
Sent: 1:16PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Fw: SALTDevelopment Hill "Preserve" Project - October 29,2024meeting Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ForwardedMessage -----
From:

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October29, 2024at01:14:41PMPDT
Subject: Fw: SALTDevelopmentHill "Preserve" Project - October29,2024meeting ForwardedMessage -----
From:

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October29, 2024at11:23:04AMPDT
Subject: Re: SALTDevelopmentHill "Preserve" Project - October29,2024meeting Iamasking ourrepresentatives, elected orotherwise, toviewtheSALT Development Hill "Preserve" Project asanything butto "Preserve" ourAnaheim Hills community. Itdefinitely willnot "preserve" orimprove thelivesofAnaheim Hills residents.

Icaneasily thinkbacktothelastfirethatwasencroaching Anaheim Hillsstarting an evacuation. Iwasinatrafficgridlock tryingtogethomefromwork togetmyfamily andthenwhenIfinallymade it, Iwasagaininagridlock tryingtocomply witha suggested evacuation. Insurance companies already recognize Anaheim Hills vulnerability tofiresbecause ofbigincreases inourhomeinsurance. Imagine what the498-unitapartment complex inAnaheim Hillswillcontribute toouralready community'sroadcongestion. Imagine whatthe498-unitapartments complex will 1 dotocrowding ourschools. Imagine whatthe498-unitapartments willdotoour already strained fireandpolicedepartments. Imagine whatthe498-unitapartments willdotoimpact ourlocalwildlife. Imagine theenvironmental impactofthe498- apartments onourAnaheim Hillscommunity.

TheCityisalsokidding themselves iftheythinkaSaltLakeCitycompany, nota localcompany, willhavedeedrestrictions thatwouldkeephalfoftheundeveloped openspace. Ifyoubelieve that, Ihaveanother offertoyouresurrecting anold phrase..."Ifyoubelieve that, Ihaveabridge inBrooklyn toselltoyou." Anaheim Hillsroadsarealready beingusedasshortcuts from/totherollroadsand otherfreeways thatareheading outtoCorona. Wearereferring toSantaAna Canyon RoadasSantaAnaCanyon Freeway, samewithSerrano, NohlRanch, Fairmount, Imperial andevenourshortAnaheim HillsRoad. Thereevenisanewroad signonNohlRanch "Freeway" between Canyon RimandAnaheim Hills, thatdirects traffic to91FREEWAY! Iwaswondering whyAnaheim Hillshadsomuchtrafficat times, thesigndirecting traffic to91Freeway answered thatquestion. Ibetthereare other signsdoingtheexact samethingwhichexplains ourcommunity traffic concerns.

Please donotapprove this "preserve" project. Makethesafetyandconcerns ofthe Anaheim Hillscommunity yourpriority.

Louise Cierpial
Anaheim Hills92807
2 Susana Barrios
From: Melissa Raymond <mraymondslp@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Resident opposition
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Istandincompleteopposi?ontotherezoningindeercanyon.

MelissaRaymond
1 Susana Barrios
From: Colleen Rust <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Goodafternoon,
Ihavebeenfollowing theDeerCanyon issueforawhilenow.

IliveoffOakCanyon & WeirCanyon andcanvouch thatSerrano fromCannon iscompletely heavywithtraffic EVERY workdaybetween 5pmand6pm.

LastFriday, Iwascoming homefromworkandneeded togettoHobbyLobby. ThetrafficwasSOthickand backed upSerrano thatIturned rightonOakCanyon thenleftonWeirCanyon. TherewereSOmany cars turning leftonWeirfromSerrano, thatIhadtowaitthrough 4lightchanges andeventhenIwashaving to dodge around carsstillINtheintersection.

Andnowthere'saquestion onADDING almost another 500homes withassociated cars?!?!?! Ifanyofyouwere evacuated inthelastfire, itwaslikeIwasinawarzone, policewithsirens racing andup Serrano, actualfiresonthehillssurrounding Serrano, dozens ofhelicopters overhead. Itwasatrue nightmare!!
Please DONOTapprove thisdevelopment. Leave ourwonderful citysomeopenspaceforustoenjoy.

Thank you,
Colleen Rust.
1 Susana Barrios
From: StacyMcGee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Fwd: SaveDeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

PleaseseetheemailbelowIoriginallysentregardingseriousconcernswehavewiththeproposedDeer CanyonDevelopment. Ihavealsoaddedpicturesthatincluderecenttrafficinthearea. Thisproject wouldcauseatrafficsituationthatwouldmakeevacuationimpossibleinanemergencysituation. We couldendupwithadeadlyfirelikeLahainawherepeoplewerekilledintheircarsbecauseofgridlock.

Inaddition, theroadsarealreadyincrediblybackedupduringrushhour. Residentswillnotbeableto travelintheirownneighborhoods foralltheirnecessarydailyactivities.

WebelievethisprojectwouldbedevastatingtothecityofAnaheim. Pleasedonotapprovethisproject.

Bestregards,
StacyMcGee
SentfrommyiPhone
Beginforwardedmessage:

From: StacyMcGee <
Date: August2, 2024at6:16:16PMPDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: SaveDeerCanyon
Hello,
IamwritingtoexpressmyobjectiontotheproposeddevelopmentinDeerCanyonin AnaheimHills. IhavelivedinAnaheimHillsforover20years. Iamconcernedaboutadding thatmanyresidentstoanareathatissubjecttoextremefirerisks. ThetrafficonSantaAna Canyonistypicallybackedeverydayduringrushhour. Ibelieveaddingalargenumberof residentswillnotonlymaketrafficunbearableduringnormaldays, butextremely dangerousifthereisafireoranyothertypeofemergency.
1 Iamaskingthatthisproposalnotbeapproved.

Bestwishes,
StacyMcGee
SentfrommyiPhone
2 3
4 5
6 Susana Barrios
From: KyleeModoc <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment; SergeModoc
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NoonProposed DeerCanyon Project
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

MyhusbandandIstandincomplete opposi?ontotheprojectproposed indeercanyon, Anaheim hillsandrezoningdeer canyon.

Serge & KyleeModoc
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Jonathan Raymond <jonathanmvraymond@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] PublicComment fortonight
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IamaresidentandhomeownerinAnaheim Hills Istandincompleteopposi?ontotheprojectproposed indeercanyon, Anaheimhillsandrezoningdeercanyon. Thisisdangerous tomyfamilyandlivingcondi?ons. Pleaseusethisasclear opposi?ontotheproposed saltproject.

Thanks,
Jonathan Raymond
1 Susana Barrios
From: AJCockrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Emailinopposition toproposed DeerCanyon development Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Thisemail isarevised version oftheemailIoriginally sentonSep3, 2023inopposition oftheproposed apartment building inDeerCanyon, EastAnaheim. Thisemail contains thesameopinion ("No" ontheDeer Canyon project), butwasedited forclarity.

To:

NickTaylor, CityPlanner, CityofAnaheim
Natalie Meeks, CityofAnaheim Council Member, District 6 I’mwriting inopposition totheproposed largeapartment complex inDeerCanyon alongSantaAnaCanyon Road (SAC) inEastAnaheim. Myobjection tothisproject hasthesecomponents:

1. Current traffic! SantaAnaCanyon isadmittedly lightly traveled during theday, butfillsup rapidly inresponse to:
a. Commuters returning homefromwork
b. Commuters whoshould beonthe91, butarelooking toavoiddailytraffic jams (Note: the volume ofthisgrouphasnoticeably increased overthepastyear) c. Commuters routed offthe91Fwybecause ofaccidents
d. Student pick-upatElRancho MS
e. Endofschool dayatCanyon HS
f. Emergency evacuation – Looking atAnaheim’sevacuation plansforthevarious zonesinEast Anaheim, SantaAnaCanyon isthemost-usedlastroadtosafety. g. Hasanyone estimated thetraffic loadtobeadded toSACbythefutureVeteran’sCemetery?

2. Future eventsadding totrafficonSAC:
a. TheSR-91 (SR-57toSR-55Improvement Project isplanned for “early2024to2027”, withtheheavyreworking oftheLakeview/91interface planned for “Mid-2025toLate 2028”. These modifications aregoingtobeagreatincentive formanydrivers toskipthe construction zoneandtakeSACasadetourforwhatcouldbea4-yearperiod. b. Featuring almost 500apartments withoccupants andtheirguests, andafleetofelectric vehicles tobeused byresidents, theproposed project couldadd1000+ vehicles todailytraffic, evenifmostresidents are “working fromhome" ascharacterized bytheproject’swebsite. c. Theproject alsoplans toaddcommercial officespace to12acres. Thenumber ofadditional carsforbusiness owners, employees andcustomers hasn’tbeenquantified, butcouldbe considerably greater.
1 3. Environmental considerations ofbuilding inDeerCanyon:
a. Considering thenumber oflandslide events andslidezones inAnaheim Hills, construction inasteepregion seems questionable.
b. DeerCanyon serves asawildlife corridor. Itwasreferred toassuchinacityplanning document from2005wherethe “DeerCanyon OpenSpaceCorridor” iscitedasan “important biological, aesthetic andrecreational resource areaofthecommunity” (seesource citation, below).

4. Sundry personal gripesandcomments:
a. Aproposal foramuchsmaller project intheareawasmadein2005, butwasnotbegun.

Whynot? What variables prevented building thesmaller project? b. Ifthecityisrequired bytheStatetobuildmorehousing, itshould lookinareaswhere development ismorefeasible, andwhere largeapartment complexes fitinbetterwiththe established surroundings.
c. Emergency evacuation revisited: Iliveinzone10ofEastAnaheim'sevacuation plan. Itrequires thatIdrivenorthtoSantaAnaCanyon road, thentraveleasttotheWeirCanyon Rdonramp to the91Fwy. Thismeans IwilldriveeastonSAC, probably toward thefire, anddirectly pastthe 1000orsonewresidents ofDeerCanyon whowillalsobeevacuating. Together wewilljointhe residents of92808 tryingtoevacuate tothe91Fwy. Theevacuation studyperformed bythe builders assumes thattheapartment residents andothers livingwestoftheprojectwillbe driving westonSantaAnaCanyon Rd, contrary totheroutedetermined in "KnowYourWay".

Thank youfortaking thetimetoreadthrough mycomments. IurgetheCityCouncil tovote “No” onthisplan todevelop DeerCanyon.

Andrea Cockrell
Source foritem3-b:
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/ View/2800/Open-Space-and-Recreation leading toapdfentitled "OpenSpace andRecreation", p54
2 Susana Barrios
From: Stephanie Callagy <salvarez123@hotmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] PublicComment
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Hello,
Iamwri?ngtostatethatIamincomplete opposi?ontotheAnaheim HillsDeerCanyonProject. Thiswillcreatea numerous amountofsafetyissuesanddevalueourareaduetothehighleveloftracandhazardous condi?onsitwill bring.

Regards,
Stephanie Callagy
1 Susana Barrios
From: LoreK <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] URGENT - Community Opposition toProposed DeerCanyon Project in Fire-RiskArea"
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityofAnaheimTeam,
Onbehalfofourcommunity, IamwritingtostronglyopposetheproposedDeerCanyonprojectinour highfire-riskarea". Wearedeeplyconcernedthatthoseconsideringthisprojectareoverlookingcritical firesafetyrisks. Ourlastevacuationexperienceunderscoredtheseverelimitationofourinfrastructure underemergencyconditions. Theaddedcongestionfromnewdevelopments insuchahigh-riskareais reckless, withthepotentialtoendangerlivesbycomplicatingevacuations.

Itiscleartoourcommunity thatadditionalhydrantsorresourcesdonotaddressthecoreissue; populationdensityinahighfire-riskzone. Emergencypreparedness shouldbeparamountinany developmentdecisionshere, yetthecurrentprojectplansfailtoadequatelyreflectthispriority.

Weurgecityleadershiptorecognizethesubstantialrisksandchoosesafetyoverdevelopmentinthis instance. Welookforwardtoathoughtfulresponsethatacknowledges ourcommunity'sconcerns.

Sincerely,
EliaCastaneda
SerranoHeights
1 Susana Barrios
From: Jennifer Ahrendt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NoonDeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil,
IamacurrentAnaheimHillsresidentintheBelAircommunityoffSantaAnaCanyonand WeirCanyon. AndIamaskingforyoutovoteNOontheDeerCanyonprojectthatwillbe adding498unitcomplextoanalreadyovercrowdedtrafficarea.

Thereareonlyacoupleaccesspointstothe91fromAnaheimHillsandthetrafficis currentlysocrowdedthatcarsarecuttingthoughmyneighborhood toavoidWeirCanyon.

Theamountofcarscomingthroughtheneighborhood issomanythatitisoftenbumperto bumpermakingithardforresidentstogetinandoutofourdriveways.

Thethoughtofanother498-1000additionalvehiclessharingtheroadinanalready overcrowdedroadwayisunsafeandirresponsible. ItwillmakeAnaheimHillsan undesirableplacetolivewhichisunfortunateandsad.

Iamscaredtothinkofthenextfireandhowwewillbeabletoevacuatesafelyandwithout runningoutofgassittingintrafficforhoursandnotgettingtoofar. Adisasterthatwillcome willyoubecomfortablewithyourvote?
IfyoucareatallabouttheresidentsofAnaheimHillsandtheirsafetypleasevoteNo.

Thankyouforyourtime.

Sincerely,
JenniferAhrendt
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: PaulDiersing <pauldiersing2@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTDevelopment hills
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Subject: ProtectOurCommunityfromUnsafeDevelopment
DearCityCouncilMembers,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHills, IamdeeplyconcernedabouttheproposeddevelopmentinDeerCanyon PreservebytheSaltProject. Thisuntouchedareaishometomanyanimalsandisavitalpartofour community’snaturalbeauty.

GivenSouthernCalifornia’shistorywithdevastatingwildfires, developinginthisareaposessignificant riskstooursafety. Itiscrucialthatweputthesafetyofourresidentsabovefinancialinterests. Our communitydoesnotneedmorejobsattheexpenseofincreasedcrimeandtraffic, reminiscentof Anaheim’sissues.

Pleaseconsiderthelong-termimplicationsandprioritizethepreservationofDeerCanyonPreservefor thewell-beingofAnaheimHillsresidents.

Sincerely,
PaulDanielDiersing
AnaheimHillsResident
1 Susana Barrios
From: Ingrid Roseman <ingridroseman1013@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] VoteNoonSALTDevelopment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

MyfamilyandImovedfromLAcountybecauseapartmentbuildingswerebuiltbehindourhouse. We movedtoAnaheimHillstohaveabetter, safer, morepeacefulwayoflife. Wepay3timestheproperty taxes, andmuchmoreforinsuranceandhousepayment.

Nowtheyareproposingtoputanapartmentbuildingbehindusinthisexclusivearea! Inanareathatwe weretoldwouldneverhavesuchathing.

Thisprojectshouldbestopped. VoteNOonSALT
1 Susana Barrios
From: castledoug2 (null) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Iamwri?ngthisemailinopposi?ontotheredevelopment ofDeerCanyon. IhavebeenanAnaheimresidentfor46 yearsandanAnaheimHillsresidentfor39years. Icouldliveanywhere elseIwantbutchosetostayherewhereIgrew up. AlltheresidentsherelovethispartofAnaheimbecauseitisanescapefromthemajorcityandfeelslikeyouare livinginamoreruralarea. Thetrachasgo?enhorribleoverthepast10yearsandifthereweputanymorebuildings andcarsintheareaitwillonlygetworse. Everyonewholivesintheinlandempireusesourstreetstoescapethehell thatisthe91freeway. Wearealreadycrowdedenoughandyourforvotewillmakeitevenworsefortheresidents. Why isitsobadtoactuallyhaveopenspaceinourtownthateveryone canenjoy? Thereareplentyofotherplacestobuild highdensityhousing. Maybethecitycouldredevelop itintomoretrailsandhaveanicepark; buildingafewpickleball courts/tenniscourtsorotherfacili?esthatwearegreatlylackinginAnaheimHills. Thereisabsolutely nothingtodoup herenowthatthe2movietheatershavealsobeenclosed.

IamalsoaFireCaptain/Paramedic, WildlandFireAcademy Instructor atthelocalcollege, andaformerwildland reghter. InmyexpertopinionbyaddingmorehomesintheWildlandUrbanInterfaceyouareendangering the residentswhocurrentlyliveandvisithere. Istayedduringthelastretoprotectmyhouseandmyneighbors homes; andittookmyfamilyover2hourstogetoutofAnaheimHills. Ishouldhavejustkeptthemwithmeathomesincethe citydidnothingtoprotectthem. Ibelievethatifyouallowthisprojecttobebuiltandthereisarewheresomeone unfortunately losestheirlifethatwhoeveronthecouncilthatvotesforthisshouldbepersonally heldliablefortheir death.

It'snotalwaysaboutmoneyandyouneedtothinkabouttheresidentsqualityoflifethathavebuiltthiscity. Dothe rightthinganddon'tbuildtheseapartments andcommercial buildings.

Thankyou,
CaptainDavidDouglas
Anaheim, Ca92807
[email protected]
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: KarenWigylus <
Sent: Tuesday, October29, 20241:35PM
To: AshleighAitken <[email protected]>; NormaC. Kurtz <[email protected]>; JoseDiaz [email protected]>; CarlosA. Leon <[email protected]>; NatalieRubalcava <[email protected]>; StephenFaessel <[email protected]>; NatalieMeeks <[email protected]>; TheresaBass [email protected]>
Cc: KenStahl <[email protected]>; NadiaCosta <[email protected]>; CityManager [email protected]>; HeatherR. Allen <[email protected]>; TedWhite <[email protected]>; NicholasJ. Taylor <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] LettertoMayorandCityCouncilMembersdated10/29/24reAgendaItem31 - ResponsetoLast MinuteLetter
You don'toften get email from Learn why this isimportant Warning: Thisemail originated fromoutside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

ThisemailissentonbehalfofKennethA. Stahl.

[email protected].

Regards, Karen.

KarenWigylus | MillerStarrRegalia
LegalAssistant toArthur F. Coon / Matthew C. Henderson / Brian D. Shaffer / Kenneth A. Stahl 1331 North California Boulevard, Suite600, Walnut Creek, CA94596 t: 925.935.9400 | d: 925.941.3273 | f: 925.933.4126 | karen.wigylus@msrlegal. com | www.msrlegal.com Vision. Strategy. Results. 60Years and Coun?ng.

MILLERSTARRREGALIACONFIDENTIALCOMMUNICATION
Thiselectronicmailmessageandanyattachmentsareintendedonlyfortheuseoftheaddressee(s) namedaboveandmaycontaininformationthatisprivileged, confidentialandexemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw. Ifyouarenotanintendedrecipient, ortheemployeeoragentresponsiblefordeliveringthise-mailto theintendedrecipient, youareherebynotifiedthatanydissemination, distributionorcopyingofthiscommunicationisstrictlyprohibited. Ifyoureceivedthise-mail messageinerror, pleaseimmediatelynotifythesenderbyreplyingtothismessageorbytelephone. Thankyou. 1 1331 N. California Blvd.

Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www. msrlegal. com
Kenneth A. Stahl
Direct Dial: 949-688-2980
ken.stahl@msrlegal. com
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
October 29, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken (aaitken@anaheim. net)
Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz (nkurtz@anaheim. net)
Council Member Jose Diaz (jodiaz@anaheim. net)
Council Member Carlos A. Leon (cleon@anahem. net)
Council Member Natalie Rubalcava ( nrubalcava@anaheim. net) Council Member Stephen Faessel (sfaessel@anaheim. net)
Council Member Natalie Meeks (nmeeks@anaheim. net)
City Clerk, Theresa Bass, CMC (tbass@anaheim. net)
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Response to Last-Minute Letter from Chatten-Brown Law Group re: Agenda Item 31 for October 29, 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor Aitken and Members of the Council:

On behalf of SALT Development, LLC (“SALT”), we write this letter in response to a dubious eleventh-hour request to delay the hearing scheduled for tonight regarding SALT’s development application for the Hills Preserve project. Though the Hills Preserve project has been in the entitlement process for four years and neighbors have had and continue to have ample opportunity to weigh in on the project, a law firm recently retained by neighbors opposed to the project wrote the Council late last night requesting a continuance of the hearing until after December 4, 2024 (“October 28 letter”). There is no good-faith basis for a continuance, however, and this is just a desperate last-minute ploy to defeat the project through a procedural sleight of hand.

The October 28 letter asserts, without citing any authority, that the Council cannot act on the project prior to December 4 because its discretion has been compromised by SALT’s filing of Preliminary Applications for three Builder’s Remedy projects on the project site.

As explained in my letter of September 27, 2024 (attached as Exhibit 1), the Builder’s Remedy projects are alternatives to the Hills Preserve Project that SALT intends to pursue in the event the Council denies the Hills Preserve project outright or unnecessarily continues the matter in response to this last-minute, unfounded demand.

According to the October 28 letter, the filing of the Preliminary Applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects constitutes a “veiled threat” that compromises the Council’s Honorable Mayor Aitken and Councilmembers
City of Anaheim
October 29, 2024